MAJOR   JOHN   R.   LYNCH 


SOME  HISTORICAL  ERRORS   OF 
JAMES  FORD  RHODES 


Some  Historical  Errors 
of  James  Ford  Rhodes 


BY 

MAJOR  JOHN  R.  LYNCH 


THE  CORNHILL  PUBLISHING  COMPANY 

BOSTON  NEW  YORK 


COPYRIGHT   1922 

BT  THE  CORNHILL  PUBLISHING   COMPANY 


Printed  in  the  United  States  of  America 


THE  JORDAN  &  MORE   PRESS 
BOSTON 


PREFACE 

Those  who  will  do  me  the  honor  of  reading 
these  chapters,  and  have  read,  or  may  hereafter 
read,  the  "  Facts  of  Reconstruction, "  will  not 
fail  to  see  the  fact  brought  out  that,  shortly  after 
the  Democratic  victories  in  the  state  and  Con 
gressional  elections  of  1874,  a  propaganda  was 
put  on  foot  to  deceive  and  mislead  the  public 
with  reference  to  the  political  situation  at  the 
South,  with  a  view  to  shaping  and  educating  pub 
lic  opinion  so  as  to  bring  about  acquiescence  in, 
and  endorsement  of,  illegal  and  questionable 
election  methods  in  that  section.  The  public 
was  to  be  taught  to  believe  that  such  methods 
were  necessary  to  prevent  "  Negro  domination." 
The  true  purpose  was  not  in  the  interest  of  "  white 
supremacy ,"  but  in  the  perpetuation  of  the  local 
oligarchies  which  had  been  brought  into  existence 
through  the  adoption  and  enforcement  of  methods 
which  Mr.  Rhodes  is  pleased  to  term  "  regret 
table."  But  the  real  facts  are  to  be  carefully 
concealed  and  never  publicly  revealed. 

The  proponents  of  this  propaganda  seem  to 
have  found  in  Mr.  James  Ford  Rhodes  their  most 
persuasive  and  versatile  champion  and  advocate. 
No  one  can  read  the  chapters  in  his  history  cover- 


i7? 


vi       Historical  Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

ing  the  reconstruction  period  without  coming  to 
the  conclusion  that,  if  what  he  writes  is  true, 
political  contests  in  those  states  at  that  time 
were  not  between  two  political  parties  but  be 
tween  the  two  races  —  that  the  success  of  one 
party  would  result  in  the  domination  of  the 
whites,  and  the  success  of  the  other  in  the  domi 
nation  of  the  blacks,  to  prevent  which  the  public 
should  acquiesce  in,  countenance  and  endorse 
election  methods  that  would  otherwise  be  re 
pudiated,  denounced  and  condemned. 

The  writer  of  these  lines  speaks  whereof  he 
personally  knows  when  he  declares  that  there 
never  was  the  slightest  foundation  for  these  alle 
gations  and  assertions.  That  the  colored  vote 
was  at  that  time,  and  in  a  large  measure  still  is, 
a  menace  to  the  success  of  the  political  party 
with  which  a  majority  of  the  whites  of  the  South 
were  and  are  still  identified  will  not  be  denied, 
but  this  was  as  much  from  necessity  as  from 
choice,  the  opposition  of  that  party  to  the  civil 
and  political  rights  of  the  colored  American  con 
stituting  the  necessity.  But  those  who  are  in 
telligent  enough  to  know  the  facts  and  candid 
enough  to  admit  them  will  not  claim  that  this 
jeopardized  the  domination  of  the  whites  in  the 
administration  of  the  government,  even  in  states 
and  districts  where  the  blacks  were  in  majority. 
The  only  line  the  colored  voters  ever  drew  in 
politics  was  that  of  party.  At  least  ninety  per 


Preface  vii 

I 

cent  of  them  voted  for  the  candidates  of  the  Re 
publican  party,  white  and  colored,  because  they 
were  Republicans,  and  against  the  candidates  of 
the  Democratic  party,  white  and  colored,  be 
cause  they  were  Democrats.  They  never  at  any 
time  voted  for  colored  men  because  they  were 
colored,  and  against  white  men  because  they 
were  white.  They  not  only  would  not  draw  the 
race  or  color  line  in  politics,  but  they  refused  to 
discriminate  against  any  one  group  or  class  of 
white  men.  They  would  not,  for  instance,  re 
fuse  to  vote  for  white  men  who  had  been  slave 
owners  or  Confederate  soldiers.  Neither  would 
they  draw  the  line  against  those  who  were  not 
natives  or  old  citizens  —  in  other  words,  "  carpet 
baggers  "  -  if  they  were  otherwise  acceptable. 

Between  1868  and  1874  the  race  or  color  line 
in  politics  was  not  strictly  drawn  even  by  the 
Democratic  party,  hence  colored  men  were  some 
times  nominated  for  positions  of  importance  by 
the  Democrats.  The  fact  was  revealed  from  the 
election  returns  that  the  colored  candidates  re 
ceived  about  the  same  number  of  votes  as  their 
white  associates,  and  the  white  Republican  can 
didates  about  the  same  number  as  their  colored 
associates,  thus  showing  that  the  race  identity  of 
the  opposing  candidates  did  not  enter  into  the 
contests.  In  speaking  of  the  attitude  of  the 
colored  people  of  the  State  of  Mississippi  towards 
the  whites,  the  Jackson  Clarion,  the  leading 


viii     Historical  Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

Democratic  paper  of  that  state,  in  a  political 
editorial  in  1874,  said:  "While  they  have  been 
naturally  tenacious  of  their  newly-acquired  privi 
leges,  their  general  conduct  will  bear  them  wit 
ness  that  they  have  shown  consideration  for  the 
feelings  of  the  whites." 

If  the  race  or  color  line  had  been  drawn  by  the 
colored  voters,  as  Mr.  Rhodes  would  have  his 
readers  believe,  the  above  quotation  would  not 
have  been  written.  Again,  if  that  allegation  had 
been  true,  colored  men  would  have  been  elected 
to  a  number  of  important  positions  to  which  white 
men  were  chosen.  No  colored  man,  for  instance, 
was  ever  elected,  or  even  aspired  to,  the  governor 
ship  of  any  one  of  the  reconstructed  states. 
Hon.  P.  B.  S.  Pinchback  of  Louisiana,  by  virtue 
of  the  position  occupied  by  him  as  acting  lieut.- 
governor,  was  called  upon  to  serve  as  governor 
of  that  state  for  a  brief  period,  during  the  suspen 
sion  by  the  legislature  of  the  governor,  and, 
judging  from  the  manner  in  which  the  duties  of 
the  position  were  discharged  during  this  time,  it 
is  apparently  true  that  the  state  would  have  had 
a  much  better  administration  had  he  been  elected 
and  served  as  governor  for  a  full  term.  Only 
three  of  the  reconstructed  states,  South  Carolina, 
Mississippi  and  Louisiana,  elected  colored  men  to 
the  office  of  Lieut.-Governor,  and  Mississippi 
did  not  elect  one  until  1873.  Prior  to  that 
time  only  one  out  of  seven  state  officials  hi 


Preface  ix 

Mississippi  had  been  a  colored  man.  Except 
South  Carolina,  on  whose  Supreme  Court  bench 
a  colored  man  by  the  name  of  Wright  served  for 
a  short  time,  no  colored  man  ever  held  a  judicial 
position  above  that  of  a  justice  of  the  peace. 
Mississippi  was  the  only  state  to  send  a  colored 
man  to  the  United  States  Senate.  Two,  Revels 
and  Bruce,  were  sent  from  that  state,  but  the 
election  of  Revels  was  to  fill  out  an  unexpired 
term  of  about  fourteen  months.  He  was  elected 
by  a  legislature  in  which  there  were  about  three 
white  men  to  one  colored. 

Hon.  P.  B.  S.  Pinchback  was  a  senator-elect 
from  Louisiana,  but  since  there  was  some  question 
about  the  legal  status  of  the  legislature  by  which 
he  was  elected,  his  right  to  the  seat  was  con 
tested.  He  finally  came  within  one  vote  of  being 
seated. 

Except  South  Carolina,  no  one  of  the  recon 
structed  states  ever  elected  more  than  two  colored 
men  to  Congress  at  any  one  time.  The  largest 
number  ever  chosen  at  any  one  election  was  in 
1872,  when  eleven  members  of  that  race  were 
elected  —  five  from  South  Carolina,  two  from 
Alabama  and  one  each  from  Louisiana,  Florida, 
Mississippi  and  North  Carolina.  The  other  Re 
publican  members  from  that  section,  about  thirty 
in  number,  elected  chiefly  by  the  votes  of  colored 
men,  were  all  whites.  The  allegation  that  the 
newly  enfranchised  blacks  drew  the  race  or  color 


x        Historical  Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

line  in  politics  is  a  grave  injustice  and  a  cruel 
slander.  They  never,  at  any  time,  manifested 
the  slightest  desire,  or  showed  the  least  inclina 
tion,  to  dominate,  but  always  to  participate.  In 
their  attitude  towards  their  white  fellow  citizens 
they  never  desired  to  humiliate  but  always  to 
cooperate.  In  political  matters  they  never  de 
sired  to  separate  themselves  from,  but  rather  to 
act  in  harmony  with,  the  whites  who  were  mem 
bers  of  the  party  to  which  they  belonged.  It  was 
their  aim,  purpose  and  wish  to  establish  and 
maintain  friendly,  cordial  and  amicable  relations 
with  their  white  fellow  citizens. 

vWhen  Mr.  Revels  was  sent  to  the  United 
States  Senate  he  carried  a  petition  which  had 
been  adopted  by  the  legislature  that  elected  him, 
cheerfully  concurred  in  by  the  colored  members, 
asking  for  the  removal  of  the  political  disabilities 
which  had  been  imposed  by  the  14th  Amendment 
upon  many  of  the  leaders  of  the  late  Confederacy.] 
In  consequence  of  this  pacificatory  attitude 
thousands  of  the  best  and  most  substantial  white 
men  of  the  South  came  into  the  Republican  party 
of  that  section,  taking  charge  and  assuming 
leadership  of  it.  One  of  the  number,  Ackerman 
from  Georgia,  was  honored  with  a  seat  in  the 
cabinet  of  President  Grant.  Another,  Hunt  of 
Louisiana,  was  honored  with  a  seat  in  the  cabinet 
of  President  Garfield.  And  but  for  the  agreement 
between  Northern  Republicans  and  Southern 


Preface  xi 

Democratic  congressmen  to  have  the  Democratic 
House  accept  and  ratify  the  findings  of  the  elec 
toral  commission,  seating  Mr.  Hayes  as  President, 
possibly  another  one  of  the  number,  Ex-Senator 
Alcorn  of  Mississippi,  instead  of  Ex-Senator  Key 
of  Tennessee,  a  Democrat,  would  have  been  made 
a  member  of  the  Hayes  cabinet. 

In  view  of  the  many  letters  of  congratulation 
and  commendation  received  from  persons  of  note 
and  prominence,  I  am  led  to  believe  that  my 
efforts  to  correct  some  of  the  flagrant  misstate- 
ments  and  misrepresentations  about  the  recon 
struction  period  have  not  been  wholly  in  vain. 

To  my  personal  friend,  Mr.  George  A.  Myers 
of  Cleveland,  Ohio,  I  am  especially  indebted.  He 
is  the  one  that  first  brought  Rhodes's  History  to 
my  notice.  He  is  not  only  personally  acquainted 
with  Mr.  Rhodes,  but  sustains  pleasant  relations 
with  him.  He  was  the  medium  through  whom 
the  correspondence  took  place  which  resulted  in 
the  preparation  of  these  chapters.  He  is  not 
only  a  man  of  marked  intelligence,  but  he  is  a 
close  and  diligent  student  of  American  history. 

In  a  letter  to  me  under  date  of  May  22,  1918, 
he  said:  "Being  unfamiliar  with  the  real  hap 
penings  of  those  early  days,  I  once  wrote  Mr. 
Rhodes  .  .  .  that  the  early  granting  of  amnesty 
to  the  South  and  the  enfranchisement  of  the 
Negro  without  an  educational  qualification  .  .  . 
were  both  national  mistakes.  .  Had  I  been 


xii      Historical  Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

informed  as  I  now  am,  through  your  "  Facts 
about  Reconstruction  "  and  this  recent  contro 
versy  between  you  and  Mr.  Rhodes,  I  would  have 
made  no  such  statement.  I  write  this  that  you 
may  see  how  one  as  careful  as  I  am  to  make 
accurate  statements  may  err  by  not  having 
reliable  information." 

Mr.  Charles  W.  Chesnutt  of  Cleveland,  Ohio, 
one  of  our  most  widely-known  authors,  in  a  letter 
addressed  to  Mr.  George  A.  Myers  dated  Decem 
ber  24,  1917,  says:  "  If  Mr.  Lynch  had  never 
written  anything  else  but  this  article,  it  would 
stamp  him  as  a  man  of  pronounced  ability.  His 
paints  are  made  clearly  and  forcefully,  and  as  he 
"^pea^^ronrt rst-4miid  knowledge,  they  have  the 
ring  of  truth,  notwithstanding  the  suggestion  on 
the  other  "side  that  the  memory  is  apt  to  be 
treacherous.  The  expert  makes  several  admis 
sions,  but  some  of  his  statements  are  very  vague 
and  unconvincing  ....  Mr.  Rhodes  has  evi 
dently  been  fed  up  with  the  Southern  view-point 
and  has  adopted  it  as  his  own.  This  seems 
regrettable,  inasmuch  as  ,a  serious  historical  work 
is  likely  to  be  accepted  as  a  true  record  of  past 
events." 

Since  this  work  is  in  a  large  measure  an  amplifi 
cation  of  some  of  the  material  points  brought  out 
in  "  The  Facts  of  Reconstruction,"  a  brief  quo 
tation  from  a  letter  written  by  a  gentleman  of 
note  relative  to  that  work  will  not  be  out  of  place 


Preface  xiii 

here.  The  gentleman  referred  to  is  Mr.  Frank 
Hamlin,  a  prominent  member  of  the  Chicago 
Bar  and  a  son  of  Ex-Vice-President  Hannibal 
Hamlin.  In  his  letter  addressed  to  the  author 
dated  June  23,  1916,  Mr.  Hamlin  said:  "  I  have 
read  your  book  l  The  Facts  of  Reconstruction  7 
with  the  keenest  interest  and  appreciation.  In 
this  tune  of  gross  misrepresentation  and  exagger 
ation  concerning  this  particular  period,  it  is  a 
matter  of  much  satisfaction  to  obtain  information 
at  first  hand,  from  one  who  has  a  personal  knowl 
edge  of  the  facts  of  that  particular  time.  .  .  . 
Your  own  views  on  reconstruction  confirm  my 
own  opinion  so  strongly  hi  regard  to  those  policies 
that  I  have  taken  this  liberty  of  writing  you  and 
thanking  you  for  expressing  them  so  clearly  and 
forcibly.  ...  I  think  you  have  performed  a 
public  service  by  placing  your  statements  in 
print,  making  them  a  matter  of  public  record 
concerning  the  days  of  reconstruction,  and  I  wish 
to  express  my  sincere  thanks  to  you  for  having 
performed  the  same." 

The  above  extracts  are  taken  from  only  a  few 
of  the  many  hundreds  of  similar  letters  that  the 
author  has  received  from  all  parts  of  our  country 
and  some  from  abroad. 

In  my  opinion,  what  will  make  this  work  es 
pecially  attractive  is  the  fact  that  both  sides  of 
the  matters  in  controversy  are  presented  under 
one  cover.  The  work  is  divided  into  three  parts. 


xiv     Historical  Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

The  first  is  the  author's  review  of  that  part  of 
Rhodes's  history  which  covers  the  reconstruction 
period,  in  which  many  of  his  errors,  misstate- 
ments  and  misrepresentations  are  pointed  out  and 
refuted.  The  second  contains  the  answer  to  the 
first,  written  by  an  "  expert  "  selected  by  Mr. 
Rhodes  for  that  purpose.  The  third  is  the  author's 
reply  to  that  answer. 

The  reader  will  not  fail  to  see  that  the  state 
governments  at  the  South  claimed  by  Mr.  Rhodes 
to  be  the  representatives  of  the  restoration  of 
home  rule  were  the  products  of  violence  and 
force.  They  were  not  governments  of  law,  but  of 
force;  not  governments  of  right,  but  of  might. 
They  were  not  based  upon  the  popular  will,  but 
the  result  of  a  violent  suppression  of  that  will. 
Having  seized  possession  of  the  machinery  called 
the  state  governments  vi  et  armis,  they  proceeded 
to  perpetuate  themselves  in  power  by  the  adop 
tion  and  enforcement  of  various  schemes  and 
devices  of  questionable  legality  and  constitution 
ality,  to  avoid  and  prevent  an  expression  of  the 
popular  will.  In  other  words,  to  disfranchise, 
through  an  evasion,  if  not  violation,  of  the  Federal 
Constitution,  thousands  of  persons  who  would 
otherwise  be  qualified  to  vote  at  all  popular 
elections.  Since  these  governments  were  brought 
into  existence  through  violence  and  force,  and  are 
maintained  in  power  through  the  adoption  and 
enforcement  of  inexcusable  and  indefensible  meth- 


Preface  xv 

ods,  their  retrogression,  degeneracy  and  ultimate 
decay  must  necessarily  follow  in  course  of  time. 

To  the  intelligent,  thoughtful  and  serious- 
minded  Americans  —  those  who  put  country  ~~t 
above  party  and  patriotism  above  self,  who 
believe  that  all  governments  should  be  based 
upon  the  will  of  the  governed,  who  hold  that 
liberty  and  justice  should  be  the  chief  corner 
stone  upon  which  every  government  rests,  and 
who  have  faith  in  the  stability  and  perpetuity  of 
Republican  institutions,  this  work  is  especially 
commended,  with  the  hope  that  it  will  receive 
careful,  thoughtful  and  deliberate  consideration. 

JOHN  R.  LYNCH. 


INTRODUCTORY 

In  1916,  in  glancing  over  one  of  the  volumes  of 
Rhodes's  history  of  the  United  States,  I  came 
across  the  chapters  giving  information  about  what 
took  place  in  the  State  of  Mississippi  during  the 
period  of  Reconstruction.  I  detected  so  many 
statements  and  representations  which,  to  my 
knowledge,  were  absolutely  groundless  that  I  de 
cided  to  read  carefully  the  entire  work,  which  I 
have  done;  and  I  regret  to  say  that,  so  far  as  the 
Reconstruction  period  is  concerned,  the  history  is 
not  only  inaccurate  and  unreliable,  but  is  the 
most  one-sided,  biased,  partisan  and  prejudiced 
historical  work  I  have  ever  read.  In  his  preface 
to  volume  six,  the  author  was  frank  enough  to 
make  the  following  observation:  "  Nineteen  years' 
almost  exclusive  devotion  to  the  study  of  one 
period  of  American  history  has  had  the  tendency 
to  narrow  my  field  of  vision."  Without  doing 
violence  to  the  truth  he  could  have  appropriately 
added  these  words:  "  And  since  the  sources  of  my 
information  touching  the  Reconstruction  period 
were  partial,  partisan  and  prejudiced,  my  field  of 
vision  has  not  only  been  narrowed,  but  my  mind 
has  been  poisoned,  my  judgment  has  been  warped, 


xviii  Historical  Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

my  deductions  have  been  biased,  and  my  opinions 
so  influenced  that  my  alleged  facts  have  not  only 
been  exaggerated,  but  my  comments,  arguments, 
inferences  and  deductions  based  upon  them  can 
have  very  little,  if  any,  value  for  historical 
purposes.  " 

Many  of  his  alleged  facts  were  so  magnified 
and  others  so  minimized  as  to  make  them  harmo 
nize  with  what  the  author  thought  the  facts 
should  be,  rather  than  what  they  actually  were. 
In  the  first  place,  the  very  name  of  his  work  is  a 
misnomer:  "  History  of  the  United  States  from 
the  Compromise  of  1850  to  the  Final  Restoration 
of  Home  Rule  at  the  South  in  1817  "  I  have  em 
phasized  the  words,  "  to  the  final  restoration  of 
home  rule  at  the  South  in  1877  "  because  those 
are  the  words  that  constitute  the  misnomer.  If 
home  rule  were  finally  restored  to  the  South  in 
1877,  the  natural  and  necessary  inference  is  that 
prior  to  that  time  those  states  were  subjected  to 
some  other  kind  of  rule,  presumably  that  of 
foreigners  and  strangers, —  an  inference  which  is  / 
wholly  at  variance  with  the  truth.  Another  in 
ference  to  be  drawn  is  that  those  states  had 
enjoyed  home  rule  until  the  same  was  disrupted 
and  set  aside  by  the  Reconstruction  Acts  of 
Congress,  but  that  it  was  finally  restored  in  1877. 
If  this  is  the  inference  which  the  writer  intended 
the  reader  to  draw,  it  is  conclusive  evidence  that 
he  was  unpardonably  and  inexcusably  ignorant 


Introductory  xix 

of  the  subject  matter  about  which  he  wrote.  As 
the  term  home  rule  is  generally  understood,  there 
never  was  a  time  when  those  states  did  not  have 
it,  unless  we  except  the  brief  period  when  they 
were  under  military  control,  and  even  then  the 
military  commanders  utilized  home  material  in 
making  appointments  to  office.  But  since  the 
officers  were  not  elected  by  the  people,  it  may  be 
plausibly  claimed  that  they  did  not  for  that 
period  have  home  rule.  But  the  state  govern 
ments  organized  and  brought  into  existence  under 
the  Reconstruction  Acts  of  Congress  were  the 
first  and  only  governments  in  that  section  which 
were  genuinely  Republican  in  form.  The  form  of 
government  which  existed  in  the  ante-bellum 
days  was  that  of  an  aristocracy.  The  govern 
ment  which  has  existed  since  what  Mr.  Rhodes 
is  pleased  to  term  the  restoration  of  home  rule  is 
simply  that  of  a  local  despotic  oligarchy.  The 
former  was  not,  and  the  present  is  not,  based 
upon  the  will  and  choice  of  the  masses,  but  the 
former  was  by  far  the  better  of  the  two,  for  what 
ever  may  be  truthfully  said  in  condemnation  and 
in  derogation  of  the  Southern  aristocracy  of  ante 
bellum  days,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  they  repre 
sented  the  wealth,  the  intelligence,  the  decency 
and  the  respectability  of  their  respective  states. 
While  the  state  governments  that  were  domi 
nated  by  the  aristocrats  were  not  based  upon  the 
will  of  the  people  as  a  whole,  yet  from  an  admin- 


xx      Historical  Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

istrative  point  of  view  they  were  not  necessarily 
bad.  Such  cannot  be  said  of  those  who  are  now 
the  representatives  of  what  Mr.  Rhodes  is  pleased 
to  term  home  rule. 


SOME  HISTORICAL  ERRORS  OF 
JAMES   FORD  RHODES 


SOME  HISTORICAL  ERRORS   OF 
JAMES  FORD   RHODES 

CHAPTER  I 
SOUTHERN  WHITE  REPUBLICANS 

In  volume  7,  page  171,  Mr.  Rhodes  says: 
"  Some  Southern  men  at  first  acted  with  the 
Republican  party,  but  they  gradually  slipped 
away  from  it  as  the  color  line  was  drawn  and 
reckless  and  corrupt  financial  legislation  inaugu 
rated."  That  thousands  of  white  men  at  the 
South  who  identified  themselves  with  the  Repub 
lican  party  between  1868  and  1876  subsequently 
left  it  will  not  be  denied,  but  the  reasons  for  their 
action  are  not  those  given  by  Mr.  Rhodes.  In 
fact,  there  is  no  truth  in  the  statement  about  the 
drawing  of  the  color  line  and  very  little  in  the 
one  about  corrupt  or  questionable  financial  legis 
lation.  The  true  reason  for  the  action  of  the 
white  men  referred  to  will  be  found  in  Chapter  II 
of  "  The  Facts  of  Reconstruction,"  but  for  the 
information  of  those  who  have  not  seen  that 
book  the  matter  will  be  touched  upon  and  briefly 
explained  here. 


4        Historical  Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

The  white  men  who  joined  and  assumed  the 
leadership  of  the  Republican  party  at  the  South 
between  1868  and  1876  were  among  the  most 
intelligent  and  cultivated  representative  men  of 
that  section.  As  a  rule  they  were  men  who  were 
identified  with  what  was  known  as  "  Southern 
aristocracy."  Such  men,  for  instance,  as  Ex- 
Governor  Orr  of  South  Carolina,  Parsons  of 
Alabama,  Reynolds  of  Texas,  and  Brown  of 
Georgia.  Also  such  men  as  Mosby,  Wickham, 
and  subsequently  Mahone,  Massey,  Paul,  Ful- 
kerson  and  Riddleberger  of  Virginia.  General 
R.  E.  Lee  was  known  to  have  leanings  in  the  same 
direction,  but  since  he  was  not  politically  ambitious 
his  views  were  not  made  a  matter  of  public  dis 
cussion.  In  addition  to  Ex-Governor  Brown  of 
Georgia,  they  included  such  men  as  Gen.  Long- 
street,  Joshua  Hill,  Bullock  and  many  others  of 
like  caliber.  Even  Ben  Hill  was  suspected  by 
some  and  accused  by  others  of  leaning  in  the  same 
direction.  In  Louisiana  not  less  than  twenty- 
five  per  cent  of  the  best  and  most  substantial 
white  men  of  that  state  became  identified  with 
the  Republican  party  under  the  leadership  of 
such  men  as  Ex-Governor  Hahn  and  Messrs. 
Hunt  (appointed  Secretary  of  the  Navy  by 
President  Garfield),  Wells,  Anderson,  and  many 
others.  Although  he  took  no  active  part  in 
politics,  General  Beauregard  was  known,  or  at 
any  rate  believed  to  be,  in  sympathy  with  these 


Southern  White  Republicans  5 

men  and  the  cause  they  represented.  But  it  was 
in  my  own  state,  Mississippi,  where  I  had  an 
intimate  knowledge  of  and  acquaintance  with  the 
solid  and  substantial  white  men  who  identified 
themselves  with  the  Republican  party,  and  whose 
leadership  the  newly  enfranchised  blacks  faith 
fully  followed.  They  included  such  men  as 
James  L.  Alcorn,  elected  governor  of  the  state  by 
the  Republicans  in  1869  and  to  the  United  States 
Senate  by  the  legislature  which  was  elected  at 
the  same  time.  Alcorn  was  one  of  the  aristocrats 
of  the  past.  He  served  with  Mr.  Lamar  in  the 
Secession  Convention  of  1861  and  was  a  general 
in  the  Confederate  Army.  Mr.  Rhodes  failed  to 
inform  his  readers  of  the  fact  that  the  Democratic 
candidate  for  governor  against  Alcorn,  Judge 
Louis  Dent,  belonged  to  that  much-abused  class 
called  "  carpetbaggers/7  but  who,  like  thousands 
of  others  of  that  class,  both  Democrats  and  Re 
publicans,  was  a  man  of  honor  and  integrity. 
The  same  was  true  of  Messrs.  Tarbell,  Powers, 
Perce,  McKee,  Jeffords,  Speed,  and  many  others, 
some  of  whom  were  Democrats.  In  addition  to 
Alcorn,  there  was  Col.  R.  W.  Flournoy,  who  also 
served  with  Mr.  Lamar  as  a  member  of  the  Seces 
sion  Convention  and  who  was  the  Republican 
candidate  for  Congress  against  Mr.  Lamar  in 
1872.  Also  Judge  Jason  Niles,  who  served  as  a 
member  of  the  State  Legislature,  Judge  of  the 
Circuit  Court  and  member  of  Congress,  whose 


6        Historical  Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

able  and  brilliant  son,  Judge  Henry  Clay  Niles, 1 
is  now  the  United  States  District  Judge  for  that 
state,  appointed  by  President  Harrison.  He  has 
the  reputation  of  being  one  of  the  best  and  finest 
Judges  on  the  Federal  Bench.  The  state  never 
had  before,  and  has  not  had  since,  a  finer  judiciary 
than  it  had  under  the  administrations  of  Alcorn, 
Powers  and  Ames,  the  three  Republican  Gover 
nors.  In  referring  to  the  three  justices  of  the 
state  supreme  court  Mr.  Rhodes  made  the  state 
ment  that  eligible  material  in  the  Republican 
party  was  so  scarce  that,  in  order  to  get  three 
competent  judges,  the  governor  was  obliged  to 
select  a  Democrat,  which  is  not  true.  Chief 
Justice  E.  G.  Peyton  and  Associate  Justice  H.  F. 
Simrall  were  both  southern  Republicans.  Justice 
Tarbell,  though  a  "  carpetbagger,"  so-called, 
was  also  a  Republican  and  an  able  judge  who 
enjoyed  the  confidence  and  respect  of  the  Bench 
and  Bar.  When  he  retired  from  the  Bench  he 
was  made  second  Comptroller  of  the  United 
States  Treasury.  In  addition  to  these  able  and 
brilliant  men,  I  feel  justified  in  naming  a  few 
others,  such  as  R.  W.  Millsaps,  in  whose  honor 
one  of  the  educational  institutions  at  Jackson  was 
named;  W.  M.  Compton,  T.  W.  Hunt,  J.  B. 
Deason,  W.  H.  Vasser,  Luke  Lea,  who  was  at 
one  time  United  States  District  Attorney,  and  his 
son,  A.  M.  Lea,  who  subsequently  held  the  same 

1  Judge  Nilea  has  since  died. 


Southern  White  Republicans  7 

office;  J.  L.  Morphis,  one  of  the  first  Republicans 
elected  to  Congress;  Judge  Hiram  Cassidy,  who 
was  the  recognized  leader  of  the  Bar  in  the  south 
ern  part  of  the  state,  and  his  able  and  brilliant 
son,  Hiram  Cassidy,  Jr.;  also  his  law  partner, 
Hon.  J.  F.  Sessions.  Among  the  circuit  and 
chancery  court  judges  there  were  such  jurists  as 
Messrs.  Chandler,  Davis,  Hancock,  Walton,  Smy- 
ley,  Henderson,  Hill,  Osgood,  Walker,  Millsaps, 
McMillan  and  Crain  —  all  Republicans,  as  in 
fact  was  every  judge  on  the  Bench  without  a 
single  exception.  In  addition  to  these  were 
thousands  of  others,  such  as  J.  N.  Carpenter  and 
James  Surget,  men  of  character,  wealth  and 
intelligence,  who  had  no  ambition  for  official 
recognition  or  political  distinction,  but  who  were 
actuated  by  what  they  honestly  believed  to  be 
conducive  to  the  best  interests  of  their  country, 
their  state  and  their  section.  In  fact,  the  south 
ern  white  men  that  came  into  the  Republican 
party  were  typical  representatives  of  the  best 
blood  and  the  finest  manhood  of  the  South,  than 
whom  no  better  men  ever  lived.  And  yet  to 
read  what  Mr.  Rhodes  has  written  one  would 
naturally  assume  that  the  opposite  of  this  was 
true  —  that  the  Republican  party  in  that  section 
was  under  the  domination  of  Northern  carpet 
baggers  and  a  few  worthless  Southern  whites  and 
a  number  of  dishonest  and  incompetent  colored 
men. 


CHAPTER  II 
SOME  MISTAKES  WERE  MADE 

That  some  mistakes  were  made  during  the 
progress  of  reconstruction  cannot  and  will  not  be 
denied.  No  friend  and  supporter  of  the  Con 
gressional  plan  of  reconstruction  will  claim  that 
everything  was  perfect  and  that  no  mistakes  were 
made.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  frankly  admitted 
that  a  number  of  grave  mistakes  and  blunders 
were  made,  but  they  were  not  confined  to  any  one 
party.  No  one  party  could  justly  lay  claim  to 
all  that  was  good  or  truthfully  charge  the  other 
with  all  that  was  bad.  Of  those  who  were  selected 
as  representatives  of  the  parties,  the  Democrats 
had,  in  point  of  experience  and  intelligence,  a 
slight  advantage  over  the  Republicans,  but  in 
point  of  honesty  and  integrity  the  impartial 
historian  will  record  the  fact  that  the  advantage 
was  with  the  Republicans.  This  point  will  be 
again  referred  to  and  will  be  more  fully  amplified 
and  explained.  But,  as  has  been  stated,  some 
mistakes  were  made  by  both  parties.  How  could 
it  have  been  otherwise?  The  Civil  War  had  just 
come  to  a  close ;  sectional  animosity  was  bitter  and 
intense.  The  Republican  party  was  looked  upon 
as  the  party  of  the  North,  and  therefore  the  bitter 


Some  Mistakes  Were  Made  9 

enemy  of  the  South.  The  Southern  white  men 
who  joined  the  Republican  party  were  accused  of 
being  traitors  to  their  section  and  false  to  their 
own  race  and  blood;  they  were  called  scalawags. 
Through  a  process  of  intimidation,  chiefly  by 
means  of  social  ostracism,  independent  thought 
and  action  on  the  part  of  Southern  whites,  during 
the  early  period  of  Reconstruction,  were  pretty 
effectually  prevented.  Through  such  methods 
they  were  quite  successfully  held  under  the  sub 
jection  and  control  of  those  whose  leadership 
they  had  been  accustomed  to  follow.  Under 
such  circumstances  the  reader  may  ask  the  ques 
tion,  why  was  it  and  how  was  it  that  so  many  of 
the  best  white  men  of  that  section  joined  the 
Republican  party?  The  answer  is  that  prior  to 
the  election  of  Gen.  Grant  to  the  presidency  in 
1868  very  few  of  them  did  so.  After  the  election 
of  Grant  in  1868  the  feeling  of  intolerance  some 
what  subsided,  resulting  in  a  large  number  of 
accessions  to  the  Republican  party  from  the 
ranks  of  the  best  and  most  substantial  white  men 
of  that  section.  But  it  was  not  until  the  re 
election  of  Grant  in  1872  that  political  proscrip 
tion,  social  ostracism  and  intolerance  completely 
and  entirely  disappeared.  It  was  then  that  white 
men  came  into,  took  charge  of  and  assumed  the 
leadership  of,  the  Republican  party  in  large  num 
bers.  They  then  had  nothing  to  fear  and  nothing 
to  lose  by  being  identified  with  it.  Political 


10      Historical  Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

proscription  and  social  ostracism  had  been  com- 
|  pletely  abandoned.  The  South  then  entered 
'  upon  a  new  era  which  was  calculated  to  bring  to 
that  section  wealth  and  prosperity,  with  happiness 
and  contentment  among  its  people  of  both  races, 
all  living  under  local  governments  dominated  and 
controlled  by  the  better  element  of  native  whites, 
with  the  cooperation,  assistance  and  participation, 
to  some  extent,  of  the  newly  enfranchised  blacks. 
All  the  mischief  that  had  resulted  from  the  policy 
of  proscription,  intolerance  and  social  ostracism 
was  prior  to  this  period.  It  was  during  that 
period  that  thousands  of  white  men  were  coerced 
into  acting  with  the  Democratic  party,  and  the 
colored  men,  of  course,  were  compelled  from 
necessity,  if  not  frdm  choice,  to  act  with  the 
Republican  party.  Wery  little  independent  ac 
tion  and  voting  could  be  indulged  in  by  either 
race.  It  was  never  a  question  of  men;  it  was 
always  a  question  of  party.  Under  such  circum 
stances  thousands  of  white  men  were  obliged  to 
vote  for  certain  Democratic  candidates  who  were 
otherwise  objectionable,  as  against  certain  Re 
publicans  who  were  otherwise  acceptable.  In  a 
like  manner  thousands  of  colored  men  were 
obliged  to  vote  for  certain  Republican  candidates 
who  were  otherwise  objectionable,  as  against 
certain  Democrats  otherwise  acceptable.  The 
wonder,  therefore,  is  not  that  so  many,  but  that 
so  few,  mistakes  were  made,  —  not  that  so  many, 


Some  Mistakes  Were  Made  11 

but  that  so  few,  objectionable  persons  were  elected 
to    important    and    responsible    positions.     The  \ 
writer  of  this  book  has  always  believed  it  to  be  a 
misfortune  to  his  race  and  to  the  country  if  con 
ditions  be  such  as  to  make  it  necessary  for  any 
race  or  group  of  which  our  citizenship  is  composed 
to  act  in  a  solid  body  with  any  one  political  partw 
The  writer  called  attention  to  this  in  a  speecn 
which  he  delivered  on  the  floor  of  the  National 
House  of  Representatives  over  thirty  years  ago. 
He  then  made  an  appeal  to  the  Democrats  to 
change  the  attitude  of  their  party  towards  the 
colored   Americans.     While    the    colored    people, 
he  said,  were  grateful  to  the  Republican  party  for 
their    physical    emancipation,    they    would    be 
equally  grateful  to  the  Democratic  party  for  their 
political  emancipation.     While  he  was  a  Repub 
lican  from  choice,  he  personally  knew  of  many 
members  of  his  race  who  were  Republicans  not 
from  choice,   but  from  necessity,  and  that  the 
Democratic  party  was  responsible  for  the   exis 
tence  of  that  necessity.     Upon  economic  questions  • 
there  are  differences  of  opinion  among  colored  as  i 
well  as  white  persons.     It  is  an  injustice  to  the  ' 
colored  race  and  a  misfortune  to  the  country  if 
they  cannot  vote  in  accordance,  with  their  con 
victions  upon  such  questions.  [No  race  or  group 
can  be  true  and  independent  American  citizens, 
as  all  should  be,  when  they  are  made  to  feel  that 
the  exercise  and  enjoyment  by  them  of  their  civil 


12      Historical  Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

and  political  rights  are  contingent  upon  the  result 
of  an  election]  It  must  be  said  to  the  credit  of 
the  late  Grover  Cleveland  that  he  did  all  in  his 
power,  both  as  governor  of  his  state  and  as  Presi 
dent  of  the  United  States,  to  bring  about  this 
necessary  change  and  reform  in  his  party.  That 
his  efforts  were  not  crowned  with  success  was 
through  no  fault  of  his. 


WILLIAM    McCARY 

Sheriff  and  Tax  Collector  of 
Adams  County,  Natchez,  Miss., 
from  1874  to  187<>.  From  a  photo 
graph  taken  by  Major  Lynch  at 
Natchez,  Miss.,  in  18(58. 


HON.  B.  K.  BRUCE 

Who  was  Sheriff  and  Tax  Col 
lector  of  Bolivar  County,  Miss., 
when  he  was  elected  U.  S.  Senator, 
in  1874. 


ROBERT  H.  WOOD 

Sheriff  and  Tax  Collector  of 
Adams  County,  Natchez,  from 
1870  to  1878. 


CHAPTER  III 
THE  TYPE  OF  MEN  ELECTED  BY  COLORED  VOTERS 

The  newly  enfranchised  blacks  at  the  South,  as 
I  have  endeavored  to  show,  had  no  other  alterna 
tive  than  to  act  with  the  Republican  party. 
That  some  objectionable  persons  should  have  been 
elected  by  their  votes  under  these  conditions 
could  not  very  well  be  prevented;  but  the 
reader  of  Mr.  Rhodes's  history  cannot  fail  to  see 
that  he  believed  it  was  a  grave  mistake  to  give 
the  colored  men  at  the  South  the  right  to  vote, 
and  in  order  to  make  the  alleged  historical  facts 
harmonize  with  his  own  views  upon  this  point  he 
took  particular  pains  to  magnify  the  virtues  and 
minimize  the  faults  of  the  Democrats  and  to 
magnify  the  faults  and  minimize  the  virtues  of  the 
Republicans,  the  colored  Republicans  especially. 
fin  vol.  7,  page  97,  for  instance,  Mr.  Rhodes  says: 

But  few  Negroes  were  competent  to  perform  the         Jf 
duties;  for  instance,  it  was  said  that  the  colored  *" 
man  who  for  four  years  was  sheriff  of  De  Soto 
county  could  neither  read  nor  write.     The  Negro 
incumbent  generally  farmed  out  his  office>  to  a 
white  deputy  for  a  share  of  the  re  venue.  "J  The 
above  is  one  of  the  most  barefaced  and  glaring 
misstatements  and  misrepresentations  that  could 


14      Historical  Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

possibly  be  made.  The  reader  will  notice  that 
the  allegation  is  based  upon  the  phrase  "  it  has 
been  said  ";  but  if  Mr.  Rhodes  had  been  anxious 
to  record  only  what  was  accurate  and  true,  he 
should,  as  he  easily  could,  have  found  out  just 
what  the  facts  were,  as  I  have  done.  The  facts 
were  these:  When  Tate  County  was  created  the 
greater  part  of  the  territory  composing  the  new 
county  had  been  taken  from  the  county  of  De- 
Soto.  The  then  sheriff  of  De  So  to  County  lived 
in  that  section  which  was  made  a  part  of  the  new 
county  of  Tate.  It  thus  became  necessary  for  a 
new  sheriff  to  be  appointed  by  the  governor  for 
De  Soto  County,  who  could  hold  office  until  the 
election  of  a  sheriff  at  the  ensuing  election. 
Rev.  J.  J.  Evans,  a  colored  Baptist  minister  and 
an  ex-federal  soldier,  was  thus  appointed.  Since 
this  took  place  in  1873,  the  appointment  must 
have  been  made  by  Governor  R.  C.  Powers,  who 
had  been  elected  lieutenant-governor  on  the 
ticket  with  Alcorn  in  1869  and  became  governor 
when  Alcorn  went  to  the  United  States  Senate  in 
1871.  Although  he  was  one  of  those  who  be 
longed  to  the  class  called  "  carpetbaggers," 
Governor  Powers  was  known  to  be  an  honest  and 
upright  man,  and  one  who  exercised  great  care  in 
all  of  his  appointments.  Governor  Powers  never 
could  have  been  induced  to  appoint  a  man  sheriff 
of  any  county  who  could  neither  read  nor  write. 
Mr.  Evans  discharged  the  duties  of  his  position 


Type  of  Men  Elected  by  Colored  Voters       15 

with  such  entire  satisfaction  that  he  was  nomi 
nated  by  the  Republicans  and  elected  to  succeed 
himself  at  the  regular  election  in  November,  1873, 
for  the  full  term  of  two  years.  In  1875  he  was 
re-nominated  by  his  party  to  succeed  himself. 
Mr.  Evans's  administration  had  been  so  satis 
factory  that  when  the  Democratic  county  con 
vention  met  to  nominate  a  county  ticket,  no 
nomination  was  made  for  the  office  of  sheriff. 
But  between  the  nomination  and  election  the 
Democratic  organization  in  the  state  saw  a  new 
light.  It  was  decided  that  the  state  must  be 
"  redeemed"  and  that  nearly  all  of  the  counties 
must  be  included  in  that  redemption.  The  Demo 
cratic  executive  committee  of  De  Soto  County 
was,  therefore,  directed  to  meet  and  complete 
the  county  ticket  by  nominating  a  candidate  for 
sheriff,  which  was  done,  and  the  ticket  as  thus 
completed  was,  of  course,  declared  elected.  De- 
Soto  County  was  "  redeemed"  It  is  a  fact  of 
which  Mr.  Rhodes  may  not  be  aware,  that  the 
county  sheriff  in  Mississippi  is  also  the  county 
tax  collector,  and  as  such  he  is  required  to  give  a 
heavy  bond.  These  bonds  are  usually  made  by 
property  owners  of  the  county,  nearly  all  of  whom 
are  white  men  and  Democrats.  Had  Mr.  Evans 
been  the  man  described  by  Mr.  Rhocles,  he  never 
could  have  qualified  for  the  office.  \It  is  also  a 
fact  of  which  Mr.  Rhodes  may  be  not  aware,  that 
the  county  sheriff  in  Mississippi  as  the  chief 


16      Historical  Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

executive  and  administrative  officer  of  his  county 
is  necessarily  obliged,  regardless  of  his  own 
qualifications  and  fitness,  to  employ  a  number  of 
assistants  and  deputies  to  aid  him  in  running  the 
office.  The  number  of  persons,  with  the  salary 
or  compensation  of  each,  is  fixed  by  law  or  the 
court,  and  they  are  paid  according  to  law  out  of 
money  appropriated  for  that  purpose.!  In  mak 
ing  these  appointments  it  is  both  reasonable  and 
natural  that  the  appointing  power  would  favor 
ably  consider  a  suggestion  or  recommendation 
from  any  one  of  his  sureties.  At  any  rate,  Mr. 
Evans  had  the  good  sense  to  surround  himself 
with  honest,  efficient  and  capable  assistants. 
He  is  still  living  at  Hernando,  De  Soto  County, 
Miss,  f  As  I  write  these  lines  an  autograph  letter 
from  him  is  before  me.  While  it  is  clear  that  he 
is  not  a  college  graduate,  his  letter  effectually 
disproves  the  allegation  that  he  can  neither  read 
nor  write.  I  judge  from  the  contents  of  his 
letter  that  there  is  no  truth  in  the  allegation  that 
he  divided  any  part  of  his  own  compensation  with 
any  one  or  more  of  his  assistants.  He  left  the 
office  with  a  spotless  record,  every  dollar  of  the 
public  funds  that  passed  through  his  hands  and 
for  which  he  was  liable  being  honestly  and  faith 
fully  accounted  forj 

But  even  if  Mr.  Evans  had  been  the  man 
described  by  Mr.  Rhodes,  it  would  have  been 
manifestly  unfair  and  unjust  to  the  colored  voters 


Type  of  Men  Elected  by  Colored  Voters       17 

of  Mississippi  to  select  him  as  a  typical  represen 
tative  of  those  who  were  elected  to  important  and 
responsible  positions  by  the  votes  of  colored  men. 
Out  of  seventy-two  counties  of  which  the  state 
was  then  composed  not  more  than  twelve  ever 
had  at  any  one  time  colored  sheriffs,  and  they 
did  not  all  hold  office  at  the  same  time.  Of  those 
who  were  thus  honored  the  writer  of  these  lines 
was  personally  acquainted  with  not  less  than  ten. 
Mr.  Evans  was  one  of  the  few  whom  he  did  not 
know  personally.  If  Mr.  Rhodes  had  desired  to 
be  fair  and  impartial  he  would  have  taken  all  of 
them  into  consideration  and  would  have  drawn 
an  average.  But  this  would  not  have  answered 
his  purpose.  It  would  have  shown  that  in  point 
of  intelligence,  capacity,  fitness,  honesty  and 
integrity  the  colored  sheriffs  compared  favorably 
with  the  whites.  Take,  for  instance,  the  county 
of  Adams-Natchez,  my  own  home,  where  two 
colored  men  at  different  times  held  the  office  of 
sheriff.  The  first  of  the  two  was  Wm.  McCary, 
who  was  elected  in  1873.  He  belonged  to  that 
small  class  known  as  free  persons  of  color  during 
the  days  of  slavery.  His  father  was  the  leading 
barber  of  Natchez  for  white  business  men,  arid  a 
private  school  teacher.  He  taught  the  children 
of  those  who  were  identified  with  his  own  class,  of 
whom  there  were  quite  a  number,  who  enjoyed 
privileges  and  advantages  which  were  denied  the 
children  of  slaves.  His  own  children,  of  course, 


18      Historical  Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

were  not  neglected.  Wm.  McCary,  therefore, 
had  a  good  English  education.  He  was  also  a 
property  owner  and  tax  payer.  He  was  one  of 
the  two  colored  men  who  qualified  as  a  surety  on 
the  bond  of  the  writer  of  these  lines  when  he  was 
appointed  a  justice  of  the  peace  in  1869.  He  was 
held  in  high  esteem  by  the  people  of  the  city  of 
Natchez  and  county  of  Adams,  both  white  and 
colored.  Prior  to  his  election  to  the  office  of 
sheriff  he  had  served  as  a  member  of  the  board  of 
aldermen  for  the  city  of  Natchez,  and  also  as 
treasurer  for  the  county  of  Adams,  and  subse 
quently  as  postmaster  of  Natchez,  the  duties  of 
all  of  which  he  discharged  with  credit  to  himself 
and  satisfaction  to  the  public.  In  1876  he  was 
succeeded  as  sheriff  by  another  colored  man, 
Robert  H.  Wood,  who  in  all  important  particulars 
was  about  on  a  par  with  McCary.  He  had 
previously  served  as  mayor  of  Natchez,  to  which 
position  he  was  elected  by  popular  vote  in  De 
cember,  1870.  He  was  serving  the  people  of 
Natchez  as  their  postmaster  when  he  was  elected 
to  the  office  of  sheriff. 

These  men  not  only  gave  satisfaction  to  the 
people  whom  they  served,  but  they  reflected 
credit  upon  themselves,  then*  race  and  their 
party,  and  also  the  community  that  was  so  fortu 
nate  as  to  have  the  benefit  of  their  services. 
What  was  true  of  those  two  men  was  also  true,  in 
a  large  measure,  of  Harney  of  Hinds,  Scott  of 


Type  of  Men  Elected  by  Colored  Voters       19 

Issaquena,  Sumner  of  Holmes,  and  several  others. 
But  if  Mr.  Rhodes  wanted  to  be  fair  and  impartial 
and  preferred  to  select  but  one  man  as  a  typical 
representative  of  those  who  were  elected  to  such 
positions  by  the  votes  of  colored  men,  he  would 
e  selected  B.  K.  Bruce,  who  was  sheriff  of 
!  Bolivar  County  when  he  was  elected  to  the  United 
States  Senate.  Mr.  Bruce  needs  no  introduction 
to  intelligent  and  reading  Americans.  He  de 
veloped  into  a  national  character.  He  reflected 
credit  not  only  upon  himself,  his  race  and  his 
party,  but  his  country  as  well.  And  yet  he  typi 
fied  in  a  most  preeminent  degree  the  colored  men 
who  were  elected  to  important  and  responsible 
positions  chiefly  by  the  votes  of  members  of  that 
race. 

But  the  reader  of  Rhodes's  history  will  look  in 
vain  for  anything  that  will  give  him  accurate  and 
impartial  information  along  these  lines.  His 
history,  therefore,  is  remarkable,  not  only  for 
what  it  says,  but  for  what  it  leaves  unsaid,  fin 
fact  it  is  plain  to  the  intelligent  reader  that  he 
started  out  with  preconceived  notions  and  ideas 
as  to  what  the  facts  were  or  should  have  been, 
and  that  he  took  pains  to  select  such  data  and  so 
to  color  the  same  as  to  make  them  harmonize 
with  his  preconceived  notions  and  opinions. 
He  thus  passed  over  in  silence  all  facts  which 
could  not  be  so  distorted  as  to  make  them  thus 
harmonize.  )He  could  find  nothing  that  was 


20      Historical  Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

creditable  or  meritorious  in  the  career  of  any 
colored  member  of  either  house  of  Congress,  not 
withstanding  the  favorable  impression  made  and 
the  important  and  dignified  service  rendered  by 
!  Revels  and  Bruce  in  the  Senate,  and  by  such 
I  members  of  the  House  as  Rainey,  Rapier,  Elliott, 
Smalls,  Cain,  Langston,  O'Hara,  Miller,  Cheat- 
ham,  White  and  others. 

|      The  speech  of  R.  B.  Elliott  in  reply  to  A.  H. 
I  Stephens  in  the  debate  on  the  Civil  Rights  Bill 
f  was  admitted  to  be  one  of  the  most  eloquent  and 
scholarly   speeches    ever    delivered  in  Congress. 
But   Mr.    Rhodes's   preconceived   opinions    and 
prejudices  were  so  firmly  fixed  that  he  was  in 
capable   of   detecting   anything   in   the   acts   or 
utterances    of    any    colored    member    of    either 
branch  of  Congress  that  deserved  to  be  commended 
or  favorably  noticed. 

The  following  is  a  brief  extract  from  the  elo 
quent  speech  of  Mr.  Elliott  on  the  occasion  above 
referred  to : 

"  The  results  of  the  war,  as  seen  in  Recon 
struction,  have  settled  forever  the  political  status 
of  my  race.  The  passage  of  this  bill  will  deter 
mine  the  civil  status,  not  only  of  the  Negro,  but 
of  any  other  class  of  citizens  who  may  feel  them 
selves  discriminated  against.  It  will  form  the 
capstone  of  that  temple  of  liberty,  begun  on  this 
continent  under  discouraging  circumstances,  car 
ried  on  in  spite  of  the  sneers  of  monarchists  and 


Type  of  Men  Elected  by  Colored  Voters       21 

the  cavils  of  pretended  friends  of  freedom,  until 
at  last  it  stands,  in  all  its  beautiful  symmetry  and 
proportions,  a  building  the  grandest  which  the 
world  has  ever  seen,  realizing  the  most  sanguine 
expectations  and  the  highest  hopes  of  those  who, 
in  the  name  of  equal,  impartial  and  universal 
liberty,  laid  the  foundation-stone. 

"  The  Holy  Scriptures  tell  us  of  an  humble 
handmaiden  who  long,  faithfully  and  patiently 
gleaned  in  the  rich  fields  of  her  wealthy  kinsman, 
and  we  are  told  further  that  at  last,  in  spite  of 
her  humble  antecedents,  she  found  favor  in  his 
sight.  For  over  two  centuries  our  race  has 
'  reaped  down  your  fields/  the  cries  and  woes  which 
we  have  uttered  have  '  entered  into  the  ears  of 
the  Lord  of  Saboath  "  and  we  are  at  last  politi 
cally  free.  The  last  vestige  only  is  needed  - 
Civil  Rights.  Having  gained  this,  we  may,  with 
hearts  overflowing  with  gratitude  and  thankful 
that  our  prayer  has  been  answered,  repeat  the 
prayer  of  Ruth :  '  Entreat  me  not  to  leave  thee, 
or  to  return  from  following  after  thee,  for  whither 
thou  goest,  I  will  go;  and  where  thou  lodgest,  I 
will  lodge;  thy  people  shall  be  my  people,  and 
thy  God  my  God;  where  thou  diest  I  will  die; 
and  there  will  I  be  buried :  the  Lord  do  so  to  me, 
and  more  also,  if  aught  but  death  part  thee  and 


me/ 


CHAPTER  IV 
CONDITIONS  IN  MISSISSIPPI 

But  to  return  to  Mississippi.  The  reader  will 
remember  I  have  previously  stated  that  in  point 
of  honesty  and  integrity  the  impartial  historian 
will  record  that  the  advantage  was  with  the 
Republicans.  This  point  I  will  now  more  fully 
amplify.  Referring  to  the  political  and  sangui 
nary  revolution  which  took  place  in  Mississippi 
in  1875,  Mr.  Rhodes  in  vol.  7,  page  141,  makes 
use  of  these  words:  "  Whilst  regretting  some  of 
the  means  employed,  all  lovers  of  good  govern 
ment  must  rejoice  at  the  redemption  of  Missis 
sippi."  .  .  .  "  Since  1876  Mississippi  has  increased 
in  population  and  in  wealth;  her  bonded  indebted 
ness  and  taxation  are  low."  It  is  difficult  to 
conceive  how  an  intelligent  man,  claiming  to  be 
an  impartial  recorder  of  historical  events,  could  be 
induced  to  make  such  glaring  misstatements  as 
the  above,  when  he  ought  to  have  known  that 
just  the  opposite  of  what  he  affirms  is  true,  except 
as  to  increase  in  population  and  wealth.  "  All 
lovers  of  good  government  must  rejoice  at  the 
redemption  of  Mississippi."  Redemption  from 
what?  The  reader  is  led  to  believe  that  the  re 
demption  is  from  bad  to  good  government;  from 
high  to  low  taxes;  from  increased  to  decreased 


Conditions  m  Mississippi  23 

bonded  indebtedness;  from  incompetent,  ineffi 
cient  and  dishonest  administration  to  competent, 
efficient,  and  honest.  Now  let  us  see  just  what 
the  facts  were  and  are.  In  1875  there  was  just 
one  state  officer  to  be  elected,  that  of  state  trea 
surer,  to  fill  the  vacancy  caused  by  the  death  of 
George  H.  Holland,  who  was  elected  on  the  ticket 
with  Ames  in  1873.  The  Democrats  nominated 
Hon,  Wm.  L.  Hemingway  of  Carroll  County, 
whose  nomination  was  favorably  received.  His 
life  had  been  an  open  book.  He  had  the  reputa 
tion  of  being  an  honest,  honorable  and  upright 
man.  In  addition,  he  was  identified  with  that 
wing  of  his  party  which  was  known  to  be  pro 
gressive,  liberal  and  fair.  In  the  early  days  of 
Reconstruction  the  Democratic  party  in  the  state 
was  sharply  divided  into  two  factions.  One,  the 
major  faction,  adopted  what  they  termed  a 
policy  of  "  masterly  inactivity,"  which  meant 
that  white  Democrats  should  take  no  part  in  the 
organization  of  a  state  government  under  the 
Reconstruction  Acts  of  Congress,  with  a  view  of 
making  the  work  of  reconstruction  as  odious,  as 
objectionable  and  as  unpopular  as  possible.  The 
other  faction  believed  it  to  be  the  duty  of  the  white 
Democrats  to  take  an  active  part  in  the  forma 
tion  of  a  state  government,  elect  as  many  Demo 
crats  to  the  state  constitutional  convention  of 
1868  as  possible,  with  a  view  to  having  a  constitu 
tion  framed  which  would  have  very  few,  if  any, 


24      Historical  Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

objectionable  clauses.  Wm.  L.  Hemingway  was 
one  of  the  latter  number,  and  as  such  he  was 
elected  to  the  constitutional  convention  of  1868 
from  Carroll  County.  The  nomination  of  Hem 
ingway  for  state  treasurer  by  the  Democratic 
state  convention  in  1875  was  looked  upon  as  a 
concession  to  that  element  of  the  party.  The 
Republicans  did  not  fail  to  see  that  in  order  to 
carry  the  state  they  must  nominate  their  strongest 
and  best  man,  even  should  the  election  be  fair 
and  honest,  as  they  hoped  would  be  the  case; 
but  this  hope  they  had  good  reason  to  appre 
hend  would  not  be  fully  realized.  Capt.  George 
M.  Buchanan  of  Marshall  County  was  nomi 
nated.  Buchanan  had  been  a  brave  and  gallant 
Confederate  soldier.  He  had  served  as  sheriff 
of  Marshall  County  for  a  number  of  years.  He 
was  strong,  able  and  popular.  He  was  known  to 
be  the  best  fitted  and  best  qualified  man  for  the 
office  of  state  treasurer.  With  a  half-way  decent 
election  his  victory  even  over  so  popular  a  man 
as  Wm.  L.  Hemingway  was  an  assured  fact. 
But  the  Democrats  had  decided  that  the  time 
had  come  for  the  state  to  be  "  redeemed,"  peace 
ably  and  fairly  if  possible,  violently  and  unfairly 
if  necessary.  With  George  M.  Buchanan  as  the 
Republican  candidate  it  was  necessary  for  means 
to  be  employed,  the  employment  of  which  Mr. 
Rhodes  so  much  regretted,  but  which  he  justifies 
because,  as  he  understands  it,  they  were  employed 


Conditions  in  Mississippi  25 

in  the  interest  of  good  government.  Was  this 
true?  Let  us  see.  Buchanan,  of  course,  was  de 
clared  defeated  and  Hemingway  declared  elected. 
Mississippi  was  thus  "  redeemed,"  "  for  which  all 
lovers  of  good  government  must  rejoice/'  but  Mr. 
Rhodes  failed  to  record  the  fact  that  this  man  who 
was  the  representative  of  the  redemption  of  the 
state  had  been  in  office  a  comparatively  brief 
period  when  the  discovery  was  made  that  he  was 
a  defaulter  to  the  amount  of  $315,612.19.  See 
chapter  16  of  "  The  Facts  of  Reconstruction." 
It  would  be  a  reflection  upon  Mr.  Rhodes's  intel 
ligence  to  assume  that  he  was  ignorant  of  this 
important  fact.  He  must  have  known  it,  but  to 
make  any  allusion  to  it  would  be  out  of  harmony 
with  the  purpose  he  evidently  had  in  view.  It  is 
safe  to  assume  that  if  the  will  of  a  majority  of  the 
legal  voters  of  the  state  had  not  been  violently 
suppressed  in  the  interest  of  good  and  honest  (?) 
government,  but  had  secured  the  election  of 
George  M.  Buchanan,  the  state,  while  it  would 
not  have  been  redeemed,  would  have  been  saved 
the  loss  of  $315,612.19. 

The  writer  of  these  lines  has  never  believed 
that  Hemingway  was  the  personal  beneficiary  of 
this  money  or  any  part  thereof,  but  that  he  was 
the  instrument  in  the  hands  of  others.  Still,  he 
was  the  official  representative  of  the  redemption 
of  the  state  for  which  "  all  lovers  of  good  govern 
ment  must  rejoice." 


26      Historical  Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

That  there  was  a  material  increase  in  the 
population  and  in  the  wealth  of  Mississippi 
will  not  be  denied.  These  two  things  would 
have  followed  even  if  the  state  had  never  been 
redeemed.  They  were  not  the  result  of  that  re 
demption,  but  in  spite  of  it.  In  fact,  there  was  a 
marked  increase  in  population  and  in  wealth 
before  as  well  as  subsequent  to  the  redemption. 
But  when  the  author  states  that  the  bonded  in 
debtedness  and  taxations  are  low,  the  impression 
necessarily  made,  and  intended  to  be  made,  upon 
the  reader's  mind  is  that  after  the  redemption  took 
place,  and  as  a  result  of  it,  the  rate  of  taxation  was 
reduced,  the  volume  of  money  paid  into  the 
state  treasury  annually  for  the  support  of  the 
government  was  less  than  it  had  been  before,  and 
that  there  had  been  a  material  reduction  in  the 
bonded  debt  of  the  state;  none  of  which  is  true. 
See  chapter  8  of  "  The  Facts  of  Reconstruction." 
If  Mr.  Rhodes  had  been  disposed  to  record  the 
truth  and  nothing  but  the  truth,  which  is  pre 
sumed  to  be  the  aim  of  an  impartial  historian,  he 
could  easily  have  obtained  the  facts,  because  they 
are  a  matter  of  record.  To  give  the  reader  an 
idea  of  what  the  facts  were  and  are,  I  will  take, 
for  purpose  of  comparison,  one  example  prior  and 
one  subsequent  to  the  redemption  of  the  state. 

In  1875,  the  year  the  redemption  took  place, 
the  assessed  value  of  taxable  property  was  $119,- 
313,834.00.  The  receipts  from  all  sources  that 


Conditions  in  Mississippi  27 

year  amounted  to  $1,801,129.12.  Disbursements 
for  the  same  year,  $1,430,192.83.  In  1907  the 
assessed  value  of  taxable  property  was  reported 
to  be  $373,584,960.  Receipts  from  all  sources, 
same  year,  $3,391,127.15.  Disbursements,  same 
year,  $3,730,343.29.  The  above  figures  speak 
for  themselves.  They  are  from  the  official  rec 
ords,  the  accuracy  of  which  cannot  be  questioned. 
(See  chapter  8  of  "  The  Facts  of  Reconstruction.") 

In  reading  the  chapter  to  which  attention  is 
called,  the  reader  will  find  that  during  the  ad 
ministration  of  Governor  Ames,  which  was  about 
half  over  when  the  redemption  took  place,  the 
rate  of  taxation  had  been  reduced  from  seven 
mills  to  four  mills,  that  a  material  reduction  had 
been  made  in  the  bonded  debt  of  the  state,  and 
that  after  the  redemption  took  place  the  tax  rate 
was  increased  from  four  mills  to  six  mills,  and 
that  by  1907,  $732,890.74  had  been  added  to  the 
bonded  debt  of  the  state.  And  yet  in  the  opinion 
of  Mr.  Rhodes  these  are  conditions,  the  inaugu 
ration  of  which  made  the  employment  of  regret 
table  means  necessary,  in  regard  to  which,  how 
ever,  "  all  lovers  of  good  government  should  re 
joice,"  since  their  employment  resulted  in  the 
redemption  of  the  state.  /\ 

But  another  evidence  of  Mr.  Rhodes's  careless      \ 
and  reckless  manner  of  stating  alleged  historical 
facts  will  be  found  in  a  paragraph  on  page  132, 
volume  7,  of  his  history.     In  speaking  of  Cover- 


28      Historical  Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

nor  Ames's  unsuccessful  efforts  to  have  troops 
sent  to  the  state  to  assist  in  maintaining  order  and 
insuring  a  fair  and  peaceable  election,  he  says: 
"  A  number  of  the  white  Republicans  of  Missis 
sippi  who  had  quarrelled  or  differed  with  Ames, 
among  whom  were  both  the  United  States  sena 
tors,  used  their  influence  against  the  sending  of 
federal  troops  to  Mississippi,  and  none  were 
sent."  The  two  United  States  senators  at  that 
time  were  J.  L.  Alcorn  and  B.  K.  Bruce.  Bruce  & 
was  a  strong  friend  and  loyal  supporter  of  Ames  I 
and  did  all  in  his  power  to  have  Ames's  request/ 
granted.  This  statement  is  based  upon  my  own! 
knowledge.  Senator  Alcorn  was  one  of  the  few 
white  Republicans  who  had  quarrelled  with 
Ames.  In  fact,  he  ran  as  an  Independent  for 
governor  against  Ames  in  1873.  But  he  was  a 
Republican  United  States  senator,  and  as  such  he 
had  no  sympathy  with  the  Democratic  party. 
My  relations  with  both  senators  were  cordial. 
If  Alcorn  had  used  his  influence  to  prevent  having 
federal  troops  sent  to  the  state,  I  am  sure  I  would 
have  known  it.  If  he  raised  his  voice  or  used  his 
pen  for  such  purpose,  that  fact  was  never  brought 
to  my  notice,  and  I  am  satisfied  it  was  never  done. 
My  own  opinion  is  that  he  remained  reticent  and 
refused  to  take  sides.  The  true  reason  why 
troops  were  not  sent  in  compliance  with  the  re 
quest  of  Governor  Ames  will  be  found  in  chapter 
14  of  "  The  Facts  of  Reconstruction." 


CHAPTER  V 
THE  RECONSTRUCTION  ACTS  OF  CONGRESS 

"  Stevens's  Reconstruction  Acts,  ostensibly  in 
the  interests  of  freedom,  were  an  attack  on  civili 
zation,"  vol.  6,  page  35.  "  In  my  judgment 
Sumner  did  not  show  wise  constructive  states 
manship  in  forcing  unqualified  Negro  Suffrage  on 
the  South,"  vol.  6,  page  40.  The  truth  is 
Stevens  and  Sumner  were  wiser  than  their  day 
and  generation.  They  were  not  favorable  to  an 
immediate  restoration  of  the  states  lately  in 
rebellion,  upon  any  conditions.  They  knew  that 
after  the  cessation  of  hostilities,  the  flower  of  the 
Confederate  army,  an  army  which  it  took  the 
entire  North,  with  all  its  numbers,  immense  wealth 
and  almost  limitless  resources,  four  years  to  con 
quer,  would  be  at  the  South,  and  that  upon  the 
completion  of  reconstruction  and  the  withdrawal 
of  the  federal  troops  that  army  could  be  utilized 
to  bring  about  practically  the  same  conditions 
that  existed  before  the  war,  hence  their  opposi 
tion  to  immediate  restoration.  But  in  this  they 
were  not  supported  by  popular  sentiment,  even 
at  the  North.  Popular  sentiment  did  not  even 
support  them  in  an  effort  to  give  the  colored  men 
the  right  to  vote,  conditionally  or  uncondition- 


30      Historical  Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

ally;  hence  the  14th  Amendment  was  so  worded 
as  to  leave  the  question  of  suffrage,  subject  to 
certain  conditions,  where  it  had  always  been, 
with  the  several  states. 

President  Johnson,  who  contended  that  the 
rebel  states  had  never  been  legally  out  of  the 
Union,  had  proceeded  to  organize  state  govern 
ments  at  the  South  upon  a  plan  of  his  own.  The 
principal  condition  which  he  exacted  of  these 
governments  was  that  they  should  ratify  the  pro 
posed  13th  Amendment  to  the  Constitution, 
which  would  legalize  and  nationalize  the  Procla 
mation  of  Emancipation.  But  popular  sentiment 
at  the  North  demanded  something  more  than  this, 
hence  the  14th  Amendment.  It  is  safe  to  assume 
that  if  the  Johnson  state  governments  at  the 
South  had  accepted  and  ratified  the  14th  Amend 
ment,  the  controversy  would  have  ended  and  no 
further  action  would  have  been  taken.  But  that$ 
Amendment  was  contemptuously  rejected  by 
them.  Congress,  which  reflected  the  dominant 
sentiment  at  the  North,  was  confronted  with  a 
grave  situation.  The  fact  was  soon  made  clear 
that  no  governments  could  be  organized  in  that 
section  on  a  plan  different  from  the  one  supported 
by  the  president  without  giving  the  colored  men 
the  right  to  vote.  After  much  deliberation  this 
plan  was  finally  adopted  and  carried  out.  This 
is  what  Mr.  Rhodes  characterizes  as  an  attack  on 
civilization.  To  what  civilization  does  he  refer? 


Reconstruction  Acts  of  Congress  31 

He  surely  could  not  have  had  in  mind  the  civiliza 
tion  which  believed  in  the  divine  right  of  slavery 
and  which  recognized  and  sanctioned  the  right  of 
one  man  to  own  another  as  his  property;  yet  this 
was  the  only  civilization  upon  which  the  Congres 
sional  plan  of  reconstruction  was  an  attack. 
But  for  the  adoption  of  this  plan  and  the  subse 
quent  legislation  of  Congress  along  the  same  line, 
the  abolition  of  slavery  through  the  ratification 
of  the  13th  Amendment  would  have  been  in  name 
only  —  a  legal  and  constitutional  myth.  And 
yet  this  is  the  civilization,  an  attack  upon  which 
Mr.  Rhodes  so  deeply  deplores.  It  is  fortunate 
for  the  country  that  a  majority  of  Mr.  Rhodes's 
fellow  citizens  did  not  and  do  not  agree  with  him 
along  these  lines. 

Since  Stevens  and  Sumner  could  not  secure  the 
adoption  of  the  plan  advocated  by  them,  they 
proceeded  to  secure  the  adoption  of  the  best  one 
possible  to  obtain  under  conditions  as  they  then 
existed;  hence  they  insisted,  successfully,  as  was 
then  believed,  that  the  legislation,  including  the 
14th  Amendment,  should  be  so  framed  as  not 
only  to  create  national  citizenship,  as  distinguished 
from  state  citizenship,  but  that  it  should  be  made 
the  duty  of  the  federal  government  to  protect  its 
own  citizens,  when  necessary,  against  domestic 
violence,  .  .  .  that  it  should  be  the  duty  of  the 
federal  government  to  protect  them  at  home  as 
well  as  abroad,  hence  the  closing  clause  in  the 


32      Historical  Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

14th  Amendment,  which  declares  that  Congress 
shall  have  power  to  enforce  the  provisions  of  that 
Amendment  by  appropriate  legislation. 

But,  says  Mr.  Rhodes,  the  Congressional  plan 
of  reconstruction  was  a  failure.  The  defeat  of  the 
Republican  party  at  the  North,  especially  in  1874, 
he  believes  "  was  due  to  the  failure  of  the  South 
ern  policy  of  the  Republican  party."  In  speaking 
of  the  action  of  President  Hayes,  he  says:  "  In 
deed  it  was  the  final  admission  of  the  Republican 
party  that  their  policy  of  forcing  Negro  suffrage 
upon  the  South  was  a  failure."  Is  it  true  that 
Reconstruction  was  a  failure?  That  depends 
upon  the  view  one  takes  of  it.  That  some  things 
many  of  its  friends  and  supporters  expected  of  it 
were  not  fully  realized  will  not  be  denied;  but 
that  it  was  a  failure  can  and  will  be  easily  dis 
proved.  Admitting  that  certain  things  expected 
of  it  by  friends  and  supporters  of  it  were  not  fully 
realized,  its  failure  even  to  that  extent  was,  in  a 
large  measure,  one  of  the  results,  but  not  one  of 
the  contributory  causes,  of  the  Democratic  national 
victory  of  1874.  The  particulars  in  which  the 
hopes  and  expectations  of  many  of  its  friends 
were  not  fully  realized  will  be  touched  upon  and 
explained  later.  I  shall  now  proceed  to  show 
wherein  that  policy  was  a  great  and  brilliant 
success. 

In  the  first  place,  as  I  have  already  stated,  when 
the  split  between  Congress  and  President  Johnson 


Reconstruction  Acts  of  Congress  33 

took  place  the  fact  was  soon  evident  that  the  en 
franchisement  of  the  blacks  was  the  only  plan 
possible  to  adopt  by  which  the  one  advocated  by 
the  President  could  be  defeated.  It  was  frankly 
admitted  that  the  war  for  the  preservation  of  the 
Union  could  not  have  been  brought  to  a  success 
ful  conclusion  without  putting  the  musket  in  the 
hands  of  the  loyal  blacks.  The  fact  was  now 
made  plain  that  the  fruits  of  the  victory  won  on 
the  battlefield  could  not  be  preserved  without 
putting  the  ballot  in  their  hands,  hence  it  was 
done.  Was  it  a  mistake?  Mr.  Rhodes  says  it 
was;  but  the  results  prove  that  it  was  not.  But 
for  the  enfranchisement  of  the  blacks  of  the  South 
at  the  time  and  in  the  way  it  was  done,  the  14th, 
and  subsequently  the  15th,  Amendments  to  the 
Federal  Constitution  never  could  have  been 
ratified. 

The  ratification  of  those  two  Amendments  alone 
vindicated  the  wisdom  of  that  legislation.  The 
14th  Amendment,  among  other  things,  made  the 
colored  people  American  citizens.  It  was,  in 
effect,  a  recall  of  the  famous  Dred  Scott  Decision. 
The  15th  Amendment  gave  the  colored  American 
access  to  the  ballot-box  in  every  state  in  the 
Union.  The  fundamental  principles  that  were 
carried  into  effect  through  the  Reconstruction 
Acts  of  Congress  were  embodied  in  those  two 
Amendments.  After  the  ratification  of  those 
Amendments,  what  had  previously  been  local 


34      Historical  Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

became  national.  No  state,  North,  South,  East 
or  West,  can  now  legally  and  constitutionally 
make  or  enforce  any  law  making  race  or  color  the 
basis  of  discrimination  in  the  exercise  and  enjoy 
ment  of  civil  and  public  rights  and  privileges,  nor 
can  it  make  race  or  color  the  basis  of  discrimina 
tion  in  prescribing  the  qualification  of  electors. 
By  the  ratification  of  those  Amendments  the  right 
of  an  American  citizen  to  the  exercise  and  enjoy 
ment  of  civil  and  political  rights  and  the  right  to 
vote  ceased  to  be  local  and  became  national. 
But  it  is  claimed  by  some  that  because  the  15th 
Amendment  is  successfully  evaded  in  some  states, 
it  is,  for  that  reason,  a  failure.  That  point  will 
be  touched  upon  and  to  some  extent  elaborated 
later.  I  will  state  here  in  passing,  however,  that 
no  law  or  constitution  has  ever  been  made  or  ever 
can  be  made  that  cannot  at  certain  times  and  in 
some  places  be  successfully  evaded.  This  does 
not  necessarily  prove  that  the  law  or  constitution 
in  question  is  a  mistake  and  should,  for  that 
reason,  be  repealed.  To  the  extent  and  for  the 
reasons  and  purposes  above  stated,  the  wisdom  of 
the  Reconstruction  Acts  of  Congress  has  been 
more  than  vindicated. 

In  addition  to  what  is  said  above  I  am  satisfied 
that  if  the  colored  men  of  the  South  had  not  been 
enfranchised  at  this  time  and  this  way,  but  each 
state  had  been  allowed  to  determine  for  itself 
whether  or  not  any  of  the  colored  inhabitants 


Reconstruction  Acts  of  Congress  35 

thereof  should  be  allowed  to  vote,  as  Mr.  Rhodes 
thinks  should  have  been  done,  there  would  be 
very  few  states,  even  now,  in  which  the  right  to 
vote  would  be  granted  to  any  of  the  colored  in 
habitants.  I  repeat,  therefore,  that  if  nothing 
else  had  been  accomplished  as  the  result,  the 
ratification  of  the  14th  and  15th  Amendments  to 
the  Federal  Constitution  more  than  vindicated 
the  wisdom  of  that  legislation. 

In  what,  then,  was  Reconstruction  a  disappoint 
ment?  I  have  frankly  stated  that  some  of  the 
hopes  and  expectations  of  a  number  of  the  friends 
and  supporters  of  the  Congressional  plan  of  re 
construction  have  not  been  fully  realized.  They 
hoped  and  believed,  for  instance,  that  when  equal 
civil  and  political  rights  were  conferred  upon  the 
colored  American  and  he  was  given  access  to  the 
ballot-box  upon  the  same  terms  and  conditions 
applicable  to  whites,  he  had  been  clothed  with  a 
weapon  by  which  he  could  defend  and  protect 
himself  against  wrong  and  injustice.  The  dis 
appointment  grows  out  of  the  fact  that  in  some 
localities  these  hopes  and  expectations  have  not 
been  fully  realized.  It  is  safe  to  assume  that  if 
Stevens  and  Sumner  had  lived  long  enough  to 
witness  the  final  results  of  that  legislation  they 
would  not  be  among  those  who  were  thus  dis 
appointed,  because  they  foresaw  what  the  final 
result  in  some  instances  and  in  some  states  might 
be,  and  therefore  advocated  the  adoption  of  the 


36      Historical  Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

necessary  means  to  anticipate  them  and  to  pre 
vent  their  successful  consummation.  Since  the 
14th  Amendment  had  created  national  citizenship 
and  had  incorporated  the  colored  American  into 
the  body  politic  of  the  country,  they  insisted, 
successfully,  upon  the  enactment  of  such  legis 
lation  as  made  it  the  duty  of  the  National  ad 
ministration  to  protect  the  individual  American 
citizen  against  domestic  violence  whenever  the 
state  in  which  he  might  live  should  fail,  refuse  or 
neglect  to  do  so.  That  Congress  possessed  the 
constitutional  right  to  pass  laws  for  that  purpose 
was  an  interpretation  in  harmony  with  the  con 
struction  placed  upon  the  14th  Amendment  by 
the  Republican  leaders  in  and  out  of  Congress, 
which  included  some  of  the  ablest  constitutional 
lawyers  our  country  had  produced,  some  of  whom 
had  a  hand  in  framing  that  Amendment.  It  was 
not  only  in  harmony  with  the  construction  placed 
upon  the  14th  Amendment  by  the  Republican 
leaders,  but  also  by  the  party  itself  as  expressed 
from  time  to  time  in  the  platforms  adopted  by  its 
national  conventions. 

The  attitude  of  the  party  on  this  point  was 
never  more  clearly  and  succinctly  set  forth  than  by 
the  Chicago  Tribune  as  late  as  July,  1888,  a  news 
paper  which  then  was,  and  now  is,  one  of  the 
strongest  and  most  influential  newspapers  in  the 
country.  In  its  issue  of  July  3,  1888,  that  able 
paper  defined  the  attitude  of  the  party  upon  this 


Reconstruction  Acts  of  Congress  37 

point  in  these  words:  "  Questions  of  policy,  such 
as  the  tariff  for  revenue,  are  wholly  subordinate  to 
the  cardinal  doctrine  of  Republicanism.  That 
the  national  government  is  supreme  in  its  juris 
diction  and  represents  an  indestructible  union  of 
indissoluble  states,  and  as  a  sovereign  power  owes 
protection  to  and  claims  allegiance  from  all  its 
citizens  at  home  and  abroad,  is  the  vital  funda 
mental  doctrine  of  the  Republican  party."  In 
harmony  with  that  construction  of  the  Constitu 
tion,  Congress  passed  the  necessary  laws,  having 
for  their  object  the  protection  of  individual 
citizens  of  the  United  States  against  domestic 
violence,  this  power  being  lodged  primarily  in  the 
president,  to  be  exercised  and  used  by  him  when 
ever  in  his  judgment  a  state  should  fail,  refuse  or 
neglect  to  afford  that  protection.  Under  this  legis 
lation  the  secret  and  lawless  political  organization 
known  as  the  Ku  Klux  Klan  was  crushed  out  by 
President  Grant,  through  the  successful  prosecu 
tion  of  many  of  its  leaders  in  the  federal  courts 
and  through  federal  machinery.  It  is  claimed  by 
some  in  recent  years  that  the  primary  purpose  of 
this  organization  was  the  protection  of  white 
women  against  the  assaults  of  vicious  colored 
men.  But  every  student  of  American  history 
knows  that  this  is  not  true.  He  knows,  on  the 
contrary,  that  it  was  a  secret  political  organiza 
tion  brought  into  existence  for  the  sole  purpose  of 
wresting  the  state  governments  at  the  South 


38      Historical  Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

from  the  party  then  in  control  of  most  of  them, 
through  lawless  methods,  such  as  intimidation 
and  murder.  The  protection  of  women  had  noth 
ing  whatever  to  do  with  it.  In  fact,  the  student 
of  American  history  knows  that  during  the  Re 
construction  period,  and  prior  thereto,  such  a  thing 
as  an  assault  upon  a  white  woman  by  a  colored 
man  seldom,  if  ever,  occurred.  While  reports  of 
that  character  during  the  past  quarter  of  a  century 
have  been  largely  exaggerated,  it  is  admitted  that 
more  crimes  of  the  sort  have  been  committed 
during  this  period  than  during  the  preceding 
century.  For  this  there  must  be  a  reason.  The 
subject  is  one  which  has  occupied  no  inconsider 
able  part  of  my  most  serious  consideration  and 
reflection.  My  conclusions  will  be  given  to  the 
public  through  a  work  which  I  have  in  contem 
plation.  But  the  protection  of  women  was  not 
one  of  the  objects  and  purposes  of  the  Ku  Klux 
Klan. 


CHAPTER  VI 

STATES  RIGHTS 

That  the  hopes  and  expectations  of  some  of  the 
friends  and  supporters  of  the  Congressional  plan  of 
reconstruction  have  not  been  fully  realized  are  due, 
in  a  large  measure,  to  the  reasons  given  below,  and 
they  also  account  for  the  actions  of  many  Southern 
white  men  in  deserting  the  Republican  party. 
In  Mr.  Rhodes's  opinion  one  of  the  reasons  for 
Democratic  victories  at  the  North,  subsequent  to 
1872,  was  due  to  a  conviction  in  the  public  mind 
that  the  Congressional  plan  of  reconstruction  was 
a  failure.  In  this  I  am  satisfied  he  is  mistaken. 
As  I  have  already  stated,  what  Mr.  Rhodes  is 
pleased  to  term  the  failure  of  the  Congressional 
plan  of  reconstruction,  but  which,  in  point  of 
fact,  was  not,  in  its  important  and  essential  par 
ticulars,  a  failure,  was  one  of  the  results  but  not 
one  of  the  primary  causes  of  the  national  Demo 
cratic  victories  in  1874  and  subsequent  thereto. 
I  am  satisfied  in  my  own  mind  that  very  few  men 
at  the  North  who  voted  the  Republican  ticket  in 
1872,  and  the  Democratic  ticket  in  1874  were 
influenced  in  changing  their  votes  by  anything 
growing  out  of,  or  connected  with,  the  reconstruc 
tion  policy  of  the  government.  On  the  contrary, 


40      Historical  Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

they  regarded  that  question  as  having  been 
settled,  hence  they  could  give  their  attention  to 
other  matters.  Some  things  connected  with  the 
national  administration,  among  them  the  back 
salary  bill  and  the  financial  panic  of  1873,  had 
brought  the  administration  into  popular  disfavor, 
hence  the  Democratic  victories  of  1874.  But  let 
the  reasons  be  what  they  may,  the  results  and  the 
effect  were  the  same  as  if  the  Congressional  plan 
of  reconstruction  had  been  the  sole  question  upon 
which  the  people  had  rendered  judgment.  After 
the  presidential  election  of  1872  further  opposition 
to  the  Congressional  plan  of  reconstruction  had 
been  completely  abandoned.  But  after  the  Demo 
cratic  victories  of  1874  a  radical  change  in  the 
situation  immediately  took  place.  It  was  then 
determined  that  the  work  of  redemption  should  be 
commenced  without  further  delay,  and  that  a 
propaganda  should  at  the  same  time  be  organized 
through  which  the  North  should  be  kept  misin 
formed  with  reference  to  the  actual  political 
situation  at  the  South.  That  the  efforts  of  those 
engaged  in  this  propaganda  have  not  been  wholly 
in  vain,  subsequent  events  have  amply  demon 
strated.  But  even  if  popular  sentiment  through 
out  the  country  were  on  the  right  side  of  this 
important  question,  it  would  ameliorate,  but 
would  not  wholly  remedy,  the  evils  complained  of, 
as  I  shall  point  out  later  on.  I  repeat,  public 
sentiment  can  ameliorate,  but  will  not  cure,  these 


States  Rights  41 

evils,  on  account  of  several  unfortunate  decisions 
rendered  by  the  United  States  Supreme  Court, 
the  result  of  two  unfortunate  appointments  to 
seats  on  the  Bench  made  by  President  Grant. 
The  judges  referred  to  are  Waite  of  Ohio  and 
Bradley  of  New  Jersey.  Both  were  supposed  to 
be  Republicans  and  believed  to  be  in  accord  with 
the  other  leaders  and  constitutional  lawyers  in 
the  Republican  party  in  their  construction  of  the 
war  amendments  to  the  Federal  Constitution. 
But  they  proved  to  be  strong  States  Rights  men, 
and  therefore  strict  constructionists.  Those  two, 
with  the  other  States  Rights  men  already  on  the 
Bench,  constituted  a  majority  of  that  tribunal. 
The  result  was  that  the  court  declared  unconsti 
tutional  and  void,  not  only  the  National  Civil0 
Rights  Act,  but  also  some  of  the  principal  sections 
of  the  different  enforcement  acts  which  provided 
for  the  protection  of  individual  citizens  by  the 
national  government  against  domestic  violence. 
National  citizenship  had  been  created  by  the 
14th  Amendment  and  the  general  government 
had  been  clothed  with  power  to  enforce  the  pro 
visions  of  that  amendment.  Legislation  for  that 
purpose  had  been  placed  upon  the  statute  books, 
and  they  were  being  enforced  whenever  and 
wherever  necessary,  as  in  the  case  of  the  lawless 
and  criminal  organization  called  Ku  Klux  Klan. 
But  the  Supreme  Court,  very  much  to  the  sur 
prise  of  everyone,  steps  in  and  ties  the  hands  of 


42      Historical  Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

the  national  administration  and  prevents  any 
further  prosecutions  for  violence  upon  the  person 
of  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  if  committed 
within  the  limits  of  any  one  of  the  states  of  the 
Union.  In  other  words,  if  the  state  in  which  a 
citizen  of  the  United  States  may  reside  cannot, 
does  not  or  will  not  protect  him  in  the  exercise 
and  enjoyment  of  his  personal,  civil  and  political 
rights,  he  is  without  a  remedy.  The  result  is 
that  the  general  government  is  placed  in  the  awk 
ward  and  anomalous  position  of  exacting  support 
and  allegiance  from  its  citizens,  which  are  pre 
sumed  to  be  paramount,  to  whom  it  cannot  in 
return  afford  protection  unless  he  should  be  out 
side  the  boundaries  of  his  own  country.  By 
those  unfortunate  and  fatal  decisions  the  mis 
chievous  doctrine  of  States  Rights,  called  by  some 
state  sovereignty,  by  others  local  self-government, 
which  was  believed  to  have  perished  upon  the 
battlefields  of  the  country,  was  given  new  life, 
strength  and  vitality.  The  decision  declaring 
the  Civil  Rights  law  unconstitutional  was  ren 
dered  by  Mr.  Justice  Bradley,  and  nearly  all  of 
those  by  which  some  of  the  principal  sections  of 
the  different  enforcement  laws  were  nullified 
were  rendered  by  Chief  Justice  Waite. 

States  Rights,  or  state  sovereignty,  has  been 
the  source  and  the  cause  of  all  of  our  national  ills 
since  the  foundation  of  the  government.  It  was 
the  chief  corner-stone  upon  which  the  institution 


States  Rights  43 

of  slavery  rested.  It  was  the  cause  of  the  conflict 
between  the  North  and  the  South,  which  brought 
on  the  war  of  the  rebellion.  The  contention  of 
the  South  was  that  whatever  is  sovereign  is  neces 
sarily  supreme,  and  since  from  their  point  of  view 
each  and  every  state  was  a  sovereign  body,  the 
right  of  a  state  to  remain  in  or  withdraw  from  the 
Union  could  not  be  denied  —  a  contention  which 
would  seem  to  be  in  perfect  harmony  with  the 
doctrine  of  state  sovereignty,  a  denial  of  which 
was  a  repudiation  of  that  doctrine.  Hence  it  was 
hoped  and  believed  that  this  vicious  doctrine 
came  to  an  end  when  the  surrender  took  place  at 
Appomattox.  It  was  so  regarded  by  its  advocates 
and  champions  at  the  South,  who  had  decided  to 
gracefully  accept  the  situation  and  govern  them 
selves  accordingly,  when  very  much  to  their 
surprise  and  gratification  the  Supreme  Court, 
through  the  dominating  influence  of  Chief  Justice 
Waite  and  Associate  Justice  Bradley,  came  to 
their  rescue  and  reaffirmed  and  re-established,  in 
effect  at  least,  the  principle  and  doctrine  for  which 
they  had  always  contended. 

Just  as  States  Rights  had  been  the  cause  of  all 
our  national  ills  before  the  war  of  the  rebellion, 
all  our  national  woes,  troubles  and  misfortunes 
since  that  time  are  due  to  the  same  cause.  It  is 
the  foundation  pillar  which  supports  the  so-called 
solid  South,  the  solidity  of  which  is  based,  not 
upon  the  will,  but  contrary  to  the  wishes  of  a 


44      Historical  Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

majority  of  the  people  of  that  section.  Those 
unfortunate  decisions,  some  of  which  were  charac 
terized  by  the  late  Justice  Harlan  as  a  process  of 
judicial  legislation,  made  such  conditions  possible. 
The  reaffirmation  of  that  vicious  doctrine  is  not 
only  the  foundation  upon  which  the  so-called 
solid  South  is  based,  which  was  brought  about  and 
can  be  maintained  only  through  a  violation  or 
evasion  of  the  national  Constitution,  but  it  is 
also  responsible  for  lynch  law,  political  proscrip 
tion,  racial  discrimination  and  official  segregation. 
In  fact,  it  has  a  tendency  to  encourage  and  pro 
mote  sectional  animosity,  racial  antagonism  and 
class  discrimination.  That  the  colored  American 
has  been  the  principal  sufferer  during  the  last 
quarter  of  a  century  is  merely  incidental.  Mem 
bers  of  that  race  may  be  the  chief  victims  today; 
those  of  another  race  or  group  may  be  the  prin 
cipal  victims  tomorrow.  The  mischief  grows  out 
of  the  fact  that  the  National  Government  cannot 
interfere  in  any  event  and  under  any  circum 
stances.  States  Rights,  therefore,  means  the  rule 
of  the  mob  in  any  state  or  locality  where  the  mob 
spirit  is  strong  enough  to  dominate,  influence  and 
control  popular  sentiment  in  that  state  or  locality. 
Take,  for  instance,  the  case  of  Leo  Frank  in 
Georgia,  a  Hebrew,  but  a  white  man,  who  was 
generally  believed  to  have  been  judicially  lynched, 
and  known  to  have  been  physically  lynched 
later.  Many,  if  not  all,  of  those  who  composed 


States  Rights  45 

the  mob  that  took  this  man's  life  are,  no  doubt, 
well  known  to  the  people  of  that  state  and  lo 
cality,  yet  nothing  has  been  done  in  the  case  of 
any  one  of  them,  and  nothing  ever  will  be  done. 
If  the  governor  that  commuted  the  sentence  of 
Frank  had  been  lynched,  as  was  threatened,  the 
result  would  have  been  the  same,  and  if  the 
President  of  the  United  States  had  publicly  de 
nounced  the  crime  and  had  gone  to  Georgia  and 
been  lynched,  the  result  would  not  have  been 
materially  different,  because  under  the  doctrine 
of  states  rights,  each  state  is  a  law  unto  itself,  and 
in  its  sovereign  capacity  as  an  independent  state 
must  be  its  own  judge  as  to  what  constitutes  law 
within  its  borders.  It  may  not  be  in  accord  with 
what  is  law  in  any  other  state,  but  that  makes  no 
difference.  What  should  constitute  law  in  Geor 
gia  is  Georgia's  business,  and  any  interference  by 
outsiders  is  a  violation  of  the  sacred  prerogatives 
of  the  sovereign  state  of  Georgia,  and  therefore 
cannot  be  tolerated.  This  is  the  principal  reason 
why  popular  sentiment  in  the  country  as  a  whole 
may  ameliorate,  but  cannot  remedy,  the  evils 
complained  of. 


CHAPTER  VII 

WHY  WHITE  MEN  AT  THE  SOUTH  LEFT  THE 
REPUBLICAN  PARTY 

The  true  reason,  therefore,  why  so  many  white 
men  at  the  South  left  the  Republican  party  may 
be  stated  under  three  heads.  First:  The  Demo 
cratic  victories  of  1874,  which  were  accepted  by 
Southern  Democrats  as  a  national  repudiation  of 
the  Congressional  plan  of  reconstruction.  Second : 
The  closeness  of  the  presidential  election  of  1876, 
and  the  bargain  made  and  entered  into  between 
the  Hayes  Managers  and  Southern  Democratic 
members  of  Congress  by  which  the  South  was  to 
be  turned  over  to  the  Democrats  of  that  section 
in  consideration  of  their  giving  consent  to  the 
peaceable  inauguration  of  Hayes.  Third:  The 
decisions  of  the  Federal  Supreme  Court  above 
referred  to,  by  which  the  doctrine  of  States 
Rights  was  given  new  life,  strength  and  vitality. 
It  is  true  there  are  some  men  whose  party  affilia 
tions  are  based  upon  principle  and  conviction, 
regardless  of  consequences  personal  to  them 
selves.  Occasionally  some  are  found  who  are 
even  willing  to  be  martyrs,  but  they  are  excep 
tions  to  the  general  rule.  The  average  man  is 
politically  ambitious.  He  desires  political  dis- 


Republican  Party  in  the  South  47 

tinction  and  official  recognition.  In  determining 
his  party  affiliations,  therefore,  he  is  more  than 
apt  to  cast  his  lot  with  the  party  through  which 
he  believes  that  ambition  may  be  gratified. 

After  the  consummation  of  the  events  above 
referred  to,  the  conviction  became  settled  in  the 
minds  of  white  men  at  the  South  that  the  Demo 
cratic  party  in  that  section  would  be,  for  a  genera 
tion  at  least,  the  only  channel  through  which  it 
would  be  possible  for  any  one  to  have  his  political 
ambition  gratified,  hence  thousands  of  those  who 
had  previously  joined  the  Republican  party 
returned  to  the  Democratic,  since  that  party 
presented  the  only  hope  for  their  future  political 
ambitions. 

I  hope  the  readers  of  these  pages  can  now  see 
why  thousands  of  white  men  at  the  South  who 
joined  the  Republican  party  between  1868  and 
1876  afterwards  left  that  party  and  became 
identified  with  the  Democratic  party.  I  trust  I 
have  made  it  clear  that  the  reasons  given  by  Mr. 
Rhodes  are  not  the  true  ones. 


CHAPTER  VIII 
THE  SOLID  SOUTH 

Notwithstanding  what  has  been  said,  the  solid 
South  of  today  is  not  the  national  menace  that  it 
was  forty  years  ago,  because  at  that  time  it  in 
cluded  the  border  states  of  Delaware,  Maryland, 
West  Virginia,  Kentucky,  and  Missouri,  which 
states  were  then  as  reliably  Democratic,  even  in 
presidential  elections,  as  the  states  of  Texas  and 
Georgia.  Such  is  not  true  of  them  now.  Whilst 
three  of  them  went  Democratic  at  the  presidential 
election  of  1916,  not  one  of  them  should  be  in 
cluded  in  what  now  constitutes  the  solid  South. 
But  if  it  took  forty  years  for  the  development  of 
the  slight  change  in  the  border  states  named 
above,  it  will  take,  under  like  conditions,  about 
one  hundred  years  more  for  the  same  progress  to 
be  made  in  the  states  which  now  comprise  what  is 
called  the  "  solid  South."  The  truth  is  that  the 
solid  South  could  have  been,  and  would  have  been, 
long  since  a  thing  of  the  past  but  for  the  fact 
that  the  national  Republican  party  has  lacked 
the  courage  of  its  convictions  in  dealing  with  the 
situation.  It  has  not  only  failed  to  meet  bravely 
the  issue  thus  involved  and  denounce  and  oppose 
the  methods  that  have  been  adopted  and  en- 


The  Solid  South  49 

forced  with  the  purpose  of  violating  and  evading 
the  war  amendments  to  the  Constitution,  but  it 
has  acquiesced  in  them,  indirectly  at  least,  as, 
for  instance,  in  the  change  that  was  made  in  the 
basis  of  representation  in  the  national  conven 
tions  of  the  party,  which  resulted  in  reduced 
representation  from  the  states  in  which  the 
colored  vote  is  suppressed.  To  the  reduced 
representation  per  se  there  can  be  no  objection. 
The  objection  is  not  to  the  result,  but  to  the 
method  adopted  to  bring  it  about,  making  the 
party  vote,  as  per  the  official  returns,  the  basis  of 
representation.  No  plan  could  be  adopted  that 
would  be  sectionally  more  inequitable,  unjust  and 
unfair  than  this.  So  far  as  the  South  is  con 
cerned,  it  is  equivalent  to  an  acceptance  and  en 
dorsement  of  the  methods  that  have  been  adopted 
in  some  of  those  states  to  exclude  the  colored  men 
from  the  ballot-box.  Since  representation  in 
national  conventions  prior  to  this  last  change  was 
based  upon  the  state's  representation  in  Congress, 
it  necessarily  follows  that  if  the  representation  in 
Congress  from  those  states  were  reduced  in  the 
manner  prescribed  by  the  14th  Amendment,  the 
representation  in  the  national  conventions  of  the 
party  would  be  reduced  as  a  result,  to  which  no 
objection  would  be  made.  But  making  the  party 
vote  the  basis  of  representation  will  prove  to  be 
unsatisfactory,  inequitable  and  sectionally  un 
just,  even  if  no  state  violates  or  evades  the  15th 


50      Historical  Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

Amendment.  There  are  some  states,  for  example, 
in  which  women  vote.  This  is  likely  to  produce 
sectional  inequality,  which  cannot  be  other  than 
unsatisfactory.  Then  again,  the  question  with 
which  the  party  will  find  itself  confronted  is, 
what  is  the  party  vote?  In  the  presidential 
election  of  1916,  according  to  the  official  returns, 
thousands  of  Republicans,  especially  in  California, 
Kansas  and  Minnesota,  must  have  voted  the 
national  Democratic  ticket  and  the  local  Repub 
lican  ticket.  On  the  other  hand,  thousands  of 
Republicans  in  the  State  of  Illinois  must  have 
voted  the  Democratic  local  ticket  and  the  Repub 
lican  national  ticket.  Any  plan  under  the  exist 
ing  apportionment  that  may  be  adopted  must  be 
uniform,  therefore  arbitrary  and  consequently 
unsatisfactory.  The  change  in  the  basis  of 
representation  was  unfortunate  and  unwise.  It 
is  safe  to  assume  that  the  change  never  would 
have  been  made  but  for  the  apparent  sectional 
inequality  in  representation  resulting  from  the 
suppression  of  the  colored  vote  at  the  South. 
The  change  was  equivalent  to  an  acquiescence  in 
the  methods  by  which  that  vote  is  suppressed, 
rather  than  a  strong  and  vigorous  condemnation 
and  denunciation  of  them. 

With  reference  to  the  political  situation  at  the 
South,  popular  sentiment  at  the  North  has  been 
radically  wrong  for  a  number  of  years.  That 
sentiment  is  fairly  and  clearly  expressed  in  the 


The  Solid  South  51 

following  paragraph,  taken  from  the  leading 
political  editorial  which  appeared  in  the  Chicago 
Tribune  in  its  issue  of  November  16th,  1916: 
"  We  are  for  having  the  South  attend  to  its  local 
political  affairs  as  it  sees  fit.  We  concede  the 
South  the  right  to  protect  white  domination. 
The  Negro  en  masse  is  unfit  to  rule  the  South,  and 
if  the  only  fashion  in  which  he  can  be  kept  from 
ruling  is  to  keep  him  from  voting,  then  keep  him 
from  voting."  That  the  Tribune  reflects,  in  the 
above,  the  dominant  sentiment  of  the  North  at 
this  time,  and  what  it  has  been  for  a  number  of 
years,  is,  I  think,  unfortunately  true.  The  reader 
will  remember  that  I  have  made  a  quotation 
approvingly  from  the  same  paper,  but  that  was 
what  the  Tribune  thought  and  said  in  1888.  The 
Tribune  of  1916  is  not  the  Tribune  of  1888.  Still, 
it  is  a  strong,  able  and  influential  paper.  It 
wields,  no  doubt,  a  great  and  wonderful  influence 
in  molding  and  shaping  popular  sentiment  in  the 
territory  in  which  it  circulates.  That  such  an 
influential  journal  should  be  so  radically  wrong 
upon  this  vital  and  important  national  question 
is  a  great  misfortune.  The  views  entertained  by 
the  editor  of  the  Tribune  are  not,  I  am  sure,  based 
upon  his  own  knowledge  and  experience ;  but  they 
are  based  upon  what  he  has  read,  chiefly  from  such 
works  as  Rhodes's  history,  for  no  one  can  read 
what  is  therein  recorded  and  accept  the  same  as 
accurate  and  authoritative  without  coming  to 


52      Historical  Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

the  same  conclusions  as  those  expressed  by  the 
Tribune.  I  give  the  editor  of  the  Tribune  credit 
for  being  honest  and  sincere  in  the  belief  that  if 
the  colored  vote  were  not  suppressed,  "  Negro 
domination  "  would  be  the  result  in  states  and 
districts  in  which  the  blacks  outnumber  the  whites. 
Even  if  this  were  true,  if  he  were  actuated  by  that 
sentiment  which  should  actuate  every  true  Ameri 
can  citizen,  he  would  be  opposed  to  the  inaugura 
tion  of  any  extraneous  or  questionable  methods 
to  defeat  and  prevent  it.  The  true  spirit  which 
should  actuate  and  control  every  law-abiding 
American  is  the  faithful  execution  and  enforce 
ment  of  every  law,  while  it  is  law  whether  it  be 
good  or  bad,  wise  or  unwise.  If  a  law  is  found  to 
be  bad  or  unwise,  it  is  far  better  that  it  be  repealed 
than  violated. 

But  the  editor  of  the  Tribune  is  mistaken  in 
assuming  that  "  Negro  domination "  would  be 
the  result  in  any  state  or  district  if  the  colored 
vote  were  not  suppressed.  His  conception  of 
"  Negro  domination "  is  different  from  that 
entertained  by  the  representatives  of  the  southern 
oligarchy.  What  the  editor  evidently  had  in 
mind  is  the  actual  physical  domination  of  the 
blacks  in  local  administration.  This  is  incorrect. 
What  is  meant  by  "  Negro  domination  "  at  the 
South  is  the  election,  for  instance,  of  one  white 
man  over  another,  to  whose  election  the  colored 
vote  may  have  contributed.  In  other  words, 


The  Solid  South  53 

whenever  the  choice  of  a  majority  of  the  whites  is 
defeated  by  the  votes  of  colored  men,  the  man 
thus  elected,  though  a  white  man,  represents 
"  Negro  domination."  If,  for  instance,  the  editor 
of  the  Tribune  happened  to  be  a  citizen  of  South 
Carolina  and  nominated  by  the  Republican  party 
of  that  state  for  governor,  and  if  all  of  his  associates 
on  the  ticket  should  be  members  of  the  same  race 
and  of  his  own  personal  selection,  the  same 
methods  would  be  employed  to  defeat  that  ticket 
as  would  be  employed  if  the  ticket  were  made  up 
exclusively  of  colored  men.  Why?  Because  its 
election  would  result  in  the  defeat  of  the  wishes 
of  a  majority  of  the  white  men  of  the  state,  and 
this  would  mean  "  Negro  domination."  What  is 
true  of  the  state  locally  is  true  of  the  country 
nationally.  Hence  the  same  methods  which 
would  be  used  to  defeat  the  Republican  ticket  in 
the  state,  even  should  all  of  its  candidates  be 
reputable  white  men,  would  be  used  to  defeat  the 
Republican  candidate  for  President  of  the  United 
States,  and  for  the  same  reasons.  The  masses  of 
Southern  whites  have  been  taught  to  believe  that 
the  Republican  party,  nationally  and  locally,  or 
any  other  party,  for  that  matter,  which  may  be  in 
opposition  to  the  Democratic  party,  is  the  anti- 
white  party,  while  the  Democratic  party  is  the 
white  man's  party. 

In    the    presidential    campaign    of    1916,    the 
Tribune    strongly    and    ably    supported    Judge 


54      Historical  Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

Hughes,  the  Republican  candidate  for  President. 
After  the  election  it  bitterly  denounced  the  solid 
South  for  being  solid  in  national  elections,  and 
yet  it  supports,  defends  and  endorses  the  methods 
by  which  that  solidity  was  brought  about  and  is 
maintained.  This  is  inconsistent.  As  long  as 
the  Tribune  entertains  the  views  to  which  expres 
sion  is  given  in  the  paragraph  above  quoted,  it 
should  not  criticise  and  find  fault  with  the  fruits 
of  its  own  teachings.  It  is  strange  and  inexpli 
cable  that  intelligent  and  well-informed  men  like 
the  editor  of  the  Tribune,  Ex-President  Taft, 
Senator  Borah  and  thousands  of  others  cannot 
see  that  this  is  not  a  racial  but  a  political  question 
—  that  it  is  not  a  contest  between  races  but  be 
tween  parties.  But  as  long  as  such  men  can  be 
deceived,  thus  causing  popular  sentiment  to 
excuse,  justify  and  tolerate  methods  that  would 
otherwise  be  condemned,  just  so  long  will  the 
conditions  of  which  they  complain  continue  to 
exist.  As  I  have  already  pointed  out,  popular 
sentiment  will  ameliorate,  but,  owing  to  the 
resuscitation  of  the  doctrine  of  States  Rights, 
cannot  eradicate,  the  evils  of  which  complaint  is 
made. 

If  in  every  Southern  state  today  no  attempt 
were  made  to  violate  or  evade  the  15th  Amend 
ment,  and  colored  men  were  allowed  free  and  un 
restricted  access  to  the  ballot-boxes  and  their 
votes  were  fairly  and  honestly  counted,  there 


The  Solid  South  55 

would  be  no  more  danger  of  "  Negro  domination  " 
in  any  one  of  these  states  than  there  is  of  female 
domination  in  states  where  women  have  the  right 
to  vote.  All  that  colored  men  have  ever  insisted 
upon  was  to  participate  —  not  to  dominate  — 
not  to  rule,  but  to  have  a  voice  in  the  selection  of 
those  who  were  to  rule.  In  view  of  their  numeri 
cal  strength  the  probalities  are  that  more  of 
them  would  be  officially  recognized  than  in  other 
sections  of  the  country,  but  never  regardless  of 
their  fitness  and  capacity,  unless  there  should  be 
a  repetition  of  conditions  that  existed  in  the  early 
days  of  Reconstruction,  which  is  improbable. 
The  dominant  element  in  the  Democratic  party 
in  that  section  at  that  time  adopted,  as  I  have 
already  stated,  what  was  called  the  policy  of 
"  masterly  inactivity,"  which  was  intended  to 
prevent  white  men,  through  threats,  coercion, 
and  intimidation,  from  taking  any  part  in  the 
organization  and  reconstruction  of  the  state 
governments,  with  a  view  to  making  the  govern 
ments  thus  organized  as  odious  and  as  objection 
able  as  possible.  In  other  words,  to  make  them, 
in  point  of  fact,  "  Negro  governments."  This 
policy  proved  to  be  somewhat  effective  in  many 
localities.  Consequently,  the  colored  men  found 
much  difficulty  in  finding  desirable  white  men 
outside  of  the  Democratic  party  for  the  different 
positions  at  their  disposal,  which  made  it  neces 
sary  in  some  instances  for  colored  men  to  be 


56      Historical  Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

selected  to  fill  positions  for  which  white  men 
would  have  otherwise  been  chosen.  But  under 
the  present  order  of  things  a  repetition  of  any 
thing  of  this  sort  would  be  wholly  out  of  the 
question. 

That  so  many  intelligent  people  at  the  North 
should  be  so  easily  deceived  about  the  situation 
at  the  South  is  almost  incomprehensible.  Even 
so  astute  a  statesman  as  the  late  James  G.  Elaine 
was  a  victim  of  the  same  delusion.  He  believed, 
in  the  first  place,  that  from  a  standpoint  of 
gratitude  for  his  action  in  defeating  the  Federal 
Elections  Bill  of  1875,  and  his  friendly  interest  in 
certain  Democratic  leaders  from  the  South, 
notably  Mr.  Lamar  of  Mississippi,  that  even  as 
the  candidate  of  the  Republican  party  for  the 
Presidency  of  the  United  States  he  would  get  fair 
treatment  at  the  South.  He  lived  long  enough  to 
see  and  acknowledge  his  mistake.  In  the  second 
place,  his  idea  was  that  the  Republican  party  had 
nothing  to  fear  from  a  solid  South,  because  in  his 
opinion  a  solid  South  in  support  of  the  Democratic 
party  would  produce  a  solid  North  in  support  of 
the  Republican  party.  While  it  is  true  that  the 
vote  of  the  South  has  not  been  decisive  in  any 
presidential  election  since  1884,  when  Mr.  Blaine 
was  himself  the  victim  of  his  own  delusion,  until 
1916,  Mr.  Blaine  ought  to  have  had  sagacity  and 
foresight  enough  to  see  that  to  maintain  a  solid 
North  in  support  of  the  Republican  party  was 


The  Solid  South  57 

wholly  out  of  the  question,  for  the  reason  that  the 
people  of  that  section  are  free  and  independent 
and  think,  speak  and  act  for  themselves.  Conse 
quently  they  are  not  only  open  to  reason,  argu 
ment  and  persuasion,  but  they  are  likely  to  change 
their  opinions  and  their  votes  in  accordance  with 
changed  conditions  that  may  take  place  from 
time  to  time.  Not  so  with  the  South.  In  that 
section  party  affiliation  is  largely  the  result  of 
habit,  custom  and  tradition.  Like  property,  it  is 
in  most  instances  a  matter  of  inheritance.  The 
masses  of  the  white  men  are  Democrats,  not 
because  of  convictions  based  upon  their  own  study 
and  investigation,  but  because  it  is  the  custom  of 
the  section  in  which  they  live.  To  be  anything 
else  they  would  be  out  of  touch  with  their  neigh 
bors,  friends,  associates  and  companions.  Some 
of  them  attend  political  meetings,  not  for  infor 
mation  or  instruction,  but  for  diversion  and 
amusement,  and  sometimes  to  satisfy  curiosity. 
Sometimes  a  man  who  may  be  out  of  harmony 
with  the  local  order  of  things  will  give  expression 
to  his  views  in  conversation,  but  his  case  is  one 
of  such  isolation  that  no  serious  account  is  made 
of  what  he  may  say,  especially  if  no  effort  is  made 
by  him  to  bring  about  organized  opposition  to 
existing  local  conditions.  The  machine  is  usually 
in  the  hands  of  trained  and  experienced  persons 
who  will  not  tolerate  serious  nor  effective  opposi 
tion  from  any  quarter.  They  attach  no  impor- 


58      Historical  Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

tance  to  platform  declarations,  local,  national  or 
otherwise,  nor  to  the  personnel  of  opposing  candi 
dates.  They  are  for  the  party  and  the  candidates 
to  which  the  local  machine  may  belong,  it  matters 
not  what  the  platform  may  declare  or  the  candi 
dates  may  say.  That  the  national  Democratic 
party  is  the  beneficiary  of  their  partiality  and 
support  is  merely  incidental.  If  they  were 
called  upon  to  choose  between  the  national 
Democratic  organization  and  what  they  call 
"  local  self-government  "  they  would  choose  the 
latter.  This  is  the  altar  upon  which  Samuel  J. 
Tilden  was  sacrificed  in  1877. 

In  writing  these  lines  I  do  not  wish  to  create 
the  impression  that  there  are  no  white  men  at  the 
South  who  are  independently  inclined  and  who 
are  not  disposed  to  rebel  against  the  local  oppres 
sion  to  which  they  are  now  subjected.  On  the 
contrary  there  are  many  thousands  of  them,  but 
as  long  as  influential  papers  like  the  Chicago 
Tribune  support  and  defend  the  methods  by 
which  they  are  held  in  political  subjection,  they 
can  do  nothing.  Their  hands  are  tied,  their  lips 
are  sealed  and  their  voices  are  hushed.  All  they 
can  do  is  to  remain  quiet  and  bide  their  time. 
At  present  they  have  no  incentive  to  make  a 
break.  They  know  that  under  existing  conditions 
the  effort  would  be  useless  and  nothing  can  be 
accomplished.  The  Tribune  and  other  influential 
papers  may  eventually  see  their  mistake  and  take 


The  Solid  South  59 

a  position  through  which  a  popular  sentiment 
will  be  created  throughout  the  country  that  will 
result  in  liberating  the  conservative  white  men  of 
the  South  from  the  political  bondage  to  which 
they  are  now  subjected.  The  Tribune  bitterly 
complains  about  the  solidity  of  the  South  in 
national  elections.  It  declares  that  so  far  as 
that  section  is  concerned  the  presidential  election 
of  1916  was  decided  in  1865.  That  is  true;  and 
if  popular  sentiment  at  the  North  remains  what 
the  Tribune  represents  it  to  be,  the  same  will  be 
true  of  the  South  for  at  least  the  next  century. 


CHAPTER  IX 

THE    DIFFERENCE   BETWEEN   SOUTHERN   AND 
NORTHERN  WHITE  MEN. 

As  political  strategists  the  Northern  white  man 
is  not  the  equal  of  his  Southern  brother.  The 
average  Northern  white  man  has  his  heart  set 
upon  the  accumulation  of  wealth,  to  which  he 
subordinates  everything  else,  politics  not  ex- 
cepted.  The  average  Southern  white  Democrat 
has  his  heart  set  upon  obtaining  and  retaining 
control  of  the  machinery  of  government,  state 
and  national,  to  which  he  subordinates  everything 
else,  the  accumulation  of  wealth  not  excepted. 
He  is  not  very  much  concerned  about  the  means 
to  be  used  and  the  methods  to  be  employed.  It 
is  the  results  politically  about  which  he  is  con 
cerned  and  in  which  he  is  interested.  This  fact 
has  been  clearly  established  through  his  willing 
ness  to  run  the  risk  of  having  the  producers  of  the 
only  wealth  and  prosperity  possible  for  him  to 
possess  demoralized  and  driven  out  of  many 
parts  of  that  section,  simply  because  he  finds  this 
mythical  race  question  to  be  his  best  paying 
political  asset.  As  long  as  the  political  agitator 
finds  this  question  can  be  successfully  utilized  to 
enable  him  to  secure  political  distinction  and 


Southern  and  Northern  White  Men  61 

official  recognition  he  will  continue  to  utilize  it, 
regardless  of  the  consequences  that  may  follow 
in  other  directions. 

The  South  is  the  natural  home  of  the  average 
colored  American.  He  would  rather  live  there 
than  in  any  other  section  of  the  country.  Its 
climate  and  soil  are  better  adapted  to  his  wants 
and  needs  than  that  of  any  other  section.  He 
knows  more  about  producing  cotton,  corn  and 
sugar  than  he  does  about  producing  wheat,  rye 
and  oats.  He  prefers  to  remain  at  the  South, 
but  he  wants  to  feel  and  to  know  that  in  the  en 
joyment  of  life,  liberty  and  property  he  has  the 
protection  of  society  and  the  law,  and  that  he  is 
permitted  to  have  a  voice  in  the  government 
under  which  he  lives  and  byj  which  he  is  taxed. 
He  wants  to  feel  and  to  know  that  his  presence 
is  not  utilized  for  purposes  of  political  exploitation. 
He  is  willing  to  have  his  presence  utilized  as  a 
commercial,  but  not  as  a  political  asset.  The 
colored  American  will  remain  at  the  South  unless 
he  finds  that  by  going  elsewhere  he  can  improve 
and  better  his  condition  financially  and  other 
wise  and  escape  from  outrage  and  oppression. 
But  the  average  Southern  political  agitator  finds 
this  mythical  race  question  has  served  his  purpose 
for  such  a  long  time  that  he  is  not  disposed  to 
abandon  it.  In  fact  he  will  never  abandon  it 
as  long  as  it  can  be  made  to  answer  his  selfish 
purposes. 


62      Historical  Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

During  the  last  forty  years  he  has  been  quite 
successful,  through  a  well-directed  and  organized 
propaganda,  in  shaping  popular  sentiment  at  the 
North  by  appealing  to  the  Northern  white  man's 
sympathies  on  the  one  hand  and  to  his  timidity 
and  financial  interests  on  the  other.  During  that 
period  he  has  been  fairly  successful  in  impressing 
the  fact  upon  the  mind  of  the  Northern  white 
man  that  it  is  to  his  financial  interest  to  let  the 
South  have  its  own  way  and  do  what  it  pleases  in 
the  management  and  conduct  of  its  local  affairs, 
even  at  the  risk  of  having  that  section  placed  in 
control  of  the  national  government. 


CHAPTER  X 

SOME   OF  THE   REPUBLICAN  PARTY'S  MISTAKES 

The  trouble  with  the  Republican  party  is  that 
during  this  important  period  it  has  lacked  the 
courage  to  meet  bravely  this  vital  and  important 
question.  This  unfortunate  fact  was  brought  to 
a  painful  climax  during  the  administration  of  Mr. 
Taft,  whose  Southern  policy  was  an  abject,  com 
plete  and  unconditional  surrender  to  the  Southern 
oligarchies,  including  the  elimination  of  the  colored 
American  as  a  political  factor.  Of  all  the  experi 
ments  that  had  been  tried  looking  to  the  dissolu 
tion  of  the  solid  South,  this  one  was  the  most 
indefensible  and  inexcusable.  Mr.  Taft's  idea 
seems  to  have  been  that  it  was  only  necessary  to 
convince  the  South  that  the  sole  difference  be 
tween  the  two  major  parties  was  that  one  stood 
for  a  little  higher  rate  of  duty  on  foreign  imports 
than  the  other:  that  in  all  other  respects  the  two 
parties  stood  practically  for  the  same  things,  and 
that  so  far  as  the  colored  American  was  concerned 
the  South  had  no  more  to  fear  from  Republican 
than  from  Democratic  success.  The  thought 
never  seems  to  have  occurred  to  Mr.  Taft  that 
there  are  thousands  of  citizens  who  have  acted 
with  the  Republican  party  and  supported  its 
candidates,  not  on  account  of  the  attitude  of  the 


64      Historical  Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

party  on  the  tariff  question,  but  in  spite  of  that 
fact  —  not  because  they  were  in  accord  with  the 
party  on  that  question,  but  because  the  party 
stood  for  national  supremacy,  human  rights  and 
manhood  suffrage.  This  was  clearly  and  dis 
tinctly  set  forth  by  the  Chicago  Tribune  in  its 
issue  of  July  3,  1888,  quoted  above.  As  long  as 
the  party  was  sound  along  those  lines  it  could 
safely  count  upon  the  loyal  support  of  that  large, 
important  and  influential  element,  regardless  of 
its  position  and  attitude  upon  other  questions  and 
issues,  because  the  principles  and  doctrines  thus 
defined  they  deemed  to  be  paramount.  But 
when  they  were  abandoned  and  repudiated  by 
Mr.  Taft,  his  administration  and  the  party  which 
he  represented  had  no  further  claim  upon  their 
loyalty  and  support.  It  is,  therefore,  not  at  all 
surprising  that  such  a  weak  and  spineless  adminis 
tration  should  fail  to  command  and  receive  public 
support. 

Then,  again,  it  seems  never  to  have  occurred  to 
Mr.  Taft  that  there  was  not  a  particle  of  sincerity 
in  the  alleged  apprehension  of  "  Negro  domina 
tion."  If  he  had  been  a  diligent  student  of  the 
political  history  of  his  country  he  would  have 
known  that  this  was  a  mere  pretext  and  excuse 
used  for  purposes  of  deception.  Very  few  believed 
that  a  man  of  Mr.  Taft's  intelligence  could  be 
thus  deceived ;  hence  his  opponents  smiled  at  his 
credulity  and  rejoiced  at  his  political  calamity. 


Republican  Party's  Mistakes  65 

What  he  intended  as  a  concession  was  accepted  as 
evidence  of  weakness,  which  was  true.  Since  the 
presence  of  the  colored  man  in  politics  was  not  the 
cause  of  the  evils  complained  of,  his  political 
elimination,  of  course,  would  not  remedy  them. 
But  even  if  it  had  been  otherwise,  Mr.  Taft's 
course  would  still  have  been  reprehensible  and 
inexcusable.  He  should  have  gone  into  office 
with  a  fixed  determination  that  the  Constitution 
and  laws  should  be  obeyed  and  enforced,  that  the 
rights  and  privileges  of  American  citizens  should 
be  protected  as  far  as  this  could  be  done  by  the 
chief  executive,  both  at  home  and  abroad,  and 
without  regard  to  differences  of  race,  color, 
nationality  or  religion,  and  that  in  making  ap 
pointments  to  office,  instead  of  declaring  that  no 
member  of  any  one  particular  race  or  group  would 
be  recognized  or  considered  if  members  of  another 
race  or  group  objected  (thus  giving  national 
sanction,  aid  and  encouragement  to  racial  dis 
crimination  and  segregation),  he  should  have 
made  it  known  that  the  door  of  hope  and  of 
opportunity  would  be  closed  against  no  American 
citizen  on  account  of  race,  color,  nationality, 
section  or  religion,  but  that  all  would  be  con 
sidered  upon  the  basis  of  efficiency,  experience, 
ability  and  integrity.  In  that  event  his  adminis 
tration  would  have  gone  down  in  history  as  one 
of  the  strongest  and  best  with  which  our  country 
had  been  blessed. 


CHAPTER  XI 
How  TO  REMEDY  EXISTING  EVILS 

But  how  and  in  what  way  are  the  existing  evils 
to  be  remedied?  The  Chicago  Tribune  clearly 
points  them  out  —  the  evils,  but  suggests  no  cure. 
As  long  as  it  adheres  to  the  position  stated  in  its 
editorial  of  November  16,  1916,  quoted  above, 
and  popular  sentiment  at  the  North  supports 
and  sustains  the  same,  there  can  be  no  remedy 
and  it  is  useless  to  complain.  Those  who  suggest 
a  repeal  of  the  15th  Amendment  as  a  cure  simply 
show  their  lack  of  intelligent  comprehension  of 
the  situation.  The  repeal  of  that  Amendment 
would  not  only  fail  to  modify  and  improve  the 
situation,  but  would  magnify  and  intensify  it.  In 
the  first  place,  there  are  very  few  states  in  which 
any  effort  is  made  to  evade  the  15th  Amendment 
by  legislative  enactment  or  constitutional  provi 
sion,  but  if  the  Amendment  were  enforced  in 
those  states  what  remains  of  the  solid  South 
would  be  a  thing  of  the  past.  As  political  parties 
are  now,  the  States  of  Mississippi,  Louisana  and 
South  Carolina,  with  twenty-nine  electoral  votes, 
would  be,  especially  in  national  elections,  as 
reliably  Republican  as  the  State  of  Vermont, 
whilst  Alabama  and  Florida  would  be  close  and 


How  to  Remedy  Existing  Evils  67 

doubtful,  with  chances  in  favor  of  the  same  party. 
But  the  principal  reason  why  the  abrogation  of 
the  15th  Amendment  would  not  remedy  existing 
evils  is  because  representation  in  Congress,  and 
consequently  in  the  electoral  college,  is  based 
not  upon  votes  or  voters  but  upon  population. 
Olt  is,  therefore,  the  physical  presence  of  the 
colored  man  at  the  South,  and  not  his  participa 
tion  in  politics  or  in  elections,  that  gives  that 
section  a  representation  in  Congress  and  in  the 
electoral  college  out  of  proportion  to  its  voting 
strength  as  revealed  by  election  returns.  It  will 
be  seen,  therefore,  that  the  abrogation  of  the 
15th  Amendment  would  afford  no  relief  whatever 
from  the  evils  of  which  complaint  is  so  justly 
made.  But  there  are  those  who  profess  to  believe 
that  if  the  15th  Amendment  were  repealed  the 
fear  of  "  Negro  domination "  would  disappear 
and  then  white  men  at  the  South  would  divide  on 
economic  questions  as  they  do  at  the  North, 
hence  the  South  would  no  longer  be  solid  in  the 
support  of  any  one  party.  Those  who  thus 
believe  are  unpardonably  ignorant  of  the  South 
ern  political  situation.  If  that  impression  had 
been  well  founded  it  would  have  developed  under 
the  administration  of  Mr.  Taft.  Again,  let  us 
take  the  State  of  Mississippi,  in  which  the  15th 
Amendment  has  been  successfully  evaded  for  the 
last  quarter  of  a  century.  During  that  period 
there  has  been  no  more  danger  of  "  Negro  domi- 


68      Historical  Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

nation  "  there  than  in  the  State  of  Illinois,  and 
yet  this  mythical  race  question  is  the  only  one 
that  is  ever  considered  or  discussed  in  Mississippi. 
They  know  very  little  about  the  tariff  and  care 
less.  They  are  not  interested  in  that  or  any  other 
economic  question;  what  they  are  interested  in 
and  concerned  about  is  control  of  the  machinery 
of  government,  state  and  national.  Why,  then, 
should  they  consider  and  discuss  what  to  them 
are  extraneous  matters  when  the  mythical  race 
question  will  answer  their  purpose?  And  it  will 
continue  to  answer  their  purpose  as  long  as 
popular  sentiment  at  the  North  remains  what  it 
is  —  as  long  as  papers  like  the  Chicago  Tribune 
continue  so  to  mold  and  shape  popular  sentiment 
at  the  North  as  to  cause  it  to  sanction  and  ap 
prove  the  extraneous  and  questionable,  if  not 
illegal,  methods  that  have  been  adopted  in  several 
states  at  the  South  to  suppress  the  colored  vote. 
No,  it  is  the  presence  of  the  colored  man,  even  in 
these  states,  as  a  prospective  voter  that  gives  the 
white  men  who  are  independently  inclined  their 
only  hope  of  future  deliverance  from  political 
tyranny  and  oppression.  White  men  of  that 
class  (and  they  are  among  the  best  in  that  section), 
are  now  quiet  and  inactive  and  will  remain  so 
until  there  comes  a  radical  change  in  popular 
sentiment  throughout  the  country.  Just  as  soon 
as  they  can  see  a  reasonable  prospect  of  deliver 
ance  from  political  oppression  they  will  strike  the 


How  to  Remedy  Existing  Evils  69 

blow,  knowing  that  they  can  depend  upon  the 
loyal  co-operation  and  support  of  their  fellow 
colored  citizens.  Repeal  the  15th  Amendment, 
and  this  prospect  and  this  hope  will  be  forever 
destroyed.  Yes,  the  colored  people  of  that  sec 
tion  will  cheerfully  co-operate  with  and  support 
the  better  element  of  the  whites  in  any  movement 
they  may  make  to  bring  about  deliverance  from 
the  local  tyrannical  oppression  to  which  they  are 
now  subjected.  They  have  done  so  in  the  past. 
They  will  do  the  same  thing  in  the  future. 


CHAPTER  XII 

THE  SUPREME  COURT  DECISION 

Already  the  liberal  element  among  the  whites 
at  the  South  sees  a  ray  of  hope  in  the  decision  of 
the  United  States  Supreme  Court  by  which  the 
different  schemes  to  evade  the  15th  Amendment 
are  declared  unconstitutional  and  void.  The 
present  court  has  no  doubt  seen  some  of  the  bad 
effects  of  previous  decisions  rendered  by  that 
tribunal  and  are  now  disposed  to  remedy  some  of 
them  by  placing  a  more  liberal  construction  upon 
the  war  Amendments  to  the  Constitution.  But 
let  the  reasons  be  what  they  may,  the  effect  of 
the  decision  is  beneficial  and  encouraging.  No 
immediate  results,  of  course,  will  follow,  but  it 
has  prepared  the  way  for  future  union,  co-opera 
tion  and  fusion  of  the  better  element  of  the  two 
races  at  the  South,  which  will  ultimately  result  in 
the  restoration  of  representative  government 
there.  In  the  meantime,  if  the  North  wants  to 
remedy  the  existing  evils  of  which  it  so  justly 
complains,  it  must  recognize  the  fact  that  this  is 
not  only  a  legal  but  also  a  great  moral  question, 
in  the  settlement  of  which  there  can  be  no  com 
promise  and  no  middle  ground.  It  must  insist 
that  the  Constitution  and  laws  be  enforced,  re- 


The  Supreme  Court  Decision  71 

spec  ted  and  obeyed.  It  must  cease  to  approve, 
justify,  tolerate  and  excuse  questionable  methods 
for  the  suppression  of  the  colored  vote  upon  the 
absurd  and  ridiculous  plea  that  they  are  neces 
sary  to  prevent  "  Negro  domination."  Will  the 
North  have  the  courage  to  take  this  stand? 
Perhaps  it  will,  but  I  fear  not.  If  not,  all  com 
plaints  and  faultfinding  about  the  solid  South 
may  as  well  cease,  for  under  present  conditions  no 
material  change  may  be  expected  for  an  indefinite 
period. 


CHAPTER  XIII 

THE  MISSISSIPPI  CONSTITUTION  OF  1890 

Mr.  Rhodes  may  contemplate  bringing  his 
history  down  to  a  period  subsequent  to  "  the 
restoration  of  home  rule  at  the  South  in  1877." 
To  enable  him  to  be  more  accurate  in  what  he  may 
write  about  the  State  of  Mississippi  I  will  take  the 
liberty  of  recording  a  few  facts  bearing  upon  this 
subject. 

Mississippi  was  the  first  state  that  invented  a 
scheme  to  disfranchise  the  colored  men  through 
an  evasion  of  the  national  Constitution.  It  was 
done  in  the  fall  of  1890,  through  the  medium  of  a 
constitutional  convention.  The  better  and  more 
liberal  element  of  the  Democratic  party  of  the 
state,  under  the  leadership  of  United  States 
Senator  E.  C.  Wai  thai,  was  opposed  to  the  pro 
posed  constitutional  convention.  That  element 
contended  that  the  constitution  that  was  framed 
in  1868  and  ratified  in  1869,  the  Reconstruction 
constitution,  was  an  excellent  document,  and  that 
the  amendments  and  changes  desired  were  not 
sufficient  to  justify  the  calling  of  a  convention  to 
frame  a  new  organic  law  for  the  state.  But  the 
radical  element,  under  the  leadership  of  United 
States  Senator  J.  Z.  George,  was  successful  and 


Mississippi  Constitution  of  1890  73 

the  convention  was  held.  Senator  George  had 
himself  nominated  and  elected  a  delegate  from 
the  state  at  large.  When  the  convention  met,  the 
fact  appeared  that  the  delegates  were  divided 
into  two  strong  and  hostile  factions,  one  under 
the  leadership  of  Senator  George,  who  insisted 
upon  the  adoption  of  the  scheme  of  which  he  was 
the  author,  called  the  "  Understanding  Clause," 
the  purpose  of  which  was  to  evade  the  15th 
Amendment  to  the  Federal  Constitution  —  to  do 
indirectly  that  which  could  not  be  done  directly. 
The  other  faction  was  under  the  able  leadership  of 
Judge  J.  B.  Christman,  of  Lincoln  County,  who 
insisted  upon  the  adoption  of  a  plan  of  which  he 
was  the  author,  that  there  be  established  an 
honest  educational  qualification  as  a  condition 
precedent  to  voting,  the  same  to  be  applicable  to 
both  races  alike.  Strong  and  able  arguments 
were  made  for  and  against  both  plans.  Many 
able  lawyers  agreed  with  Judge  Christman  in  the 
opinion  that  the  George  plan  would  not  stand  the 
test  of  a  judicial  interpretation,  while  no  one 
questioned  the  constitutionality  of  the  plan  pro 
posed  by  Judge  Christman.  Under  the  Christ 
man  plan  illiterates  of  both  races  would  be  ex 
cluded,  whilst  the  George  plan  was  so  worded  as 
to  put  it  in  the  power  of  those  in  control  of  the 
election  machinery  to  exclude  the  illiterates  of 
one  race  without  excluding  those  of  the  other.  It 
looked  for  a  while  as  if  the  Christman  plan  would 


74      Historical  Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

be  adopted,  but  the  supporters  of  the  George 
plan  were  desperate  and  determined.  The  presi 
dent  of  the  convention,  Judge  S.  S.  Calhoun,  was 
prevailed  upon  to  leave  the  chair  and  come  to  the 
floor  of  the  convention  and  take  part  in  the  de 
bates  in  defense  of  the  George  plan.  He  spoke 
with  more  frankness  and  candor  than  any  of  the 
other  speakers.  He  had  nothing  to  conceal.  He 
called  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  party  of 
which  all  of  the  delegates  were  members  had  been 
carrying  elections  in  the  state  since  1875  by 
methods  that  were  wholly  indefensible,  such  as 
murder,  perjury  and  fraud.  These  methods,  he 
contended,  should  be  discontinued  and  wholly 
abandoned,  because  they  were  corrupting  the 
morals  of  the  people  of  the  state,  and  yet  "  white 
supremacy "  must  be  maintained  at  any  cost. 
The  rejection  of  the  George  plan,  he  contended, 
would  result  in  the  continuance  of  the  methods  to 
which  he  had  referred.  Pointing  dramatically  at 
the  advocates  of  the  Christman  plan,  he  exclaimed 
that  in  the  event  of  the  adoption  of  the  plan  advo 
cated  by  them,  the  blood  of  every  Negro  here 
after  killed  in  an  election  riot  would  rest  upon 
their  shoulders.  When  the  vote  was  finally 
taken  it  was  found  that  a  majority  had  voted  for 
the  questionable  George  plan,  a  fact  which  created 
intense  excitement  throughout  the  state.  It  was 
soon  made  clear  that  the  constitution  would  be 
rejected  when  submitted  to  the  people  for  ratifi- 


Mississippi  Constitution  of  1890  75 

cation.  The  Democratic  press  of  the  state  was 
about  equally  divided  for  and  against  it.  It  was 
estimated  that  at  least  forty  per  cent  of  the 
Democrats  would  vote  against  it,  whilst  the  Re 
publican  vote  would  be  solid  against  it.  But  the 
George  faction  was  equal  to  the  occasion.  They 
did  not  intend  to  allow  their  work  and  their  heroic 
efforts  to  be  wholly  in  vain.  When  the  fact  was 
made  plain  to  them  that  the  constitution  as  thus 
framed  would  be  rejected  by  the  voters,  they 
coolly  decided  that  the  dear  people  should  not  be 
allowed  to  pass  judgment  upon  it,  hence  the  con 
vention  that  framed  it  declared  it  ratified  and  by 
ordinance  fixed  the  date  when  it  should  go  into 
effect.  This  was  in  the  fall  of  1890.  Since  that 
time  the  people  of  that  unfortunate  state  have 
been  living  under  a  constitution  which  they  had 
no  voice  in  making  and  which  they  would  have 
rejected  had  the  privilege  been  given  them  to  pass 
judgment  upon  it.  But  this  high-handed  proce 
dure  will,  no  doubt,  be  justified  by  Mr.  Rhodes 
upon  the  ground  that,  from  his  point  of  view,  it 
was  a  completion  of  the  restoration  of  home  rule 
in  that  state. 

I  cannot  close  this  chapter  without  giving  ex 
pression  to  the  hope  that  a  fair,  just  and  impartial 
historian  will  some  day  write  a  history  covering 
the  Reconstruction  period,  in  which  an  accurate 
account,  based  upon  the  actual  facts  of  what  took 
place  at  that  time,  will  be  given,  instead  of  a 


76      Historical  Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

compilation  of  untrue,  unreliable  and  grossly 
exaggerated  statements  taken  from  political  cam 
paign  literature. 

The  following  chapter  is  the  answer  to  the 
foregoing,  written  by  an  "  expert  "  selected  by 
Mr.  Rhodes  for  that  purpose. 


CHAPTER  XIV 

SOME  COMMENTS  ON  THE  ARTICLE  BY  JOHN  R. 

LYNCH    ON    SOME    HISTORICAL   ERRORS    OF 

JAMES  FORD  RHODES 

An  obvious  general  comment  on  the  article  is 
that  if  the  Reconstruction  period  throughout  the 
South  and  in  Mississippi  in  particular  was  engi 
neered  and  controlled  by  men  of  such  high  charac 
ter  as  Mr.  Lynch  records,  why  should  the  acts 
accredited  to  them  have  been  of  such  a  low 
character?  It  is  not  enough  to  say  that  there 
were  "  mistakes  ";  the  measures  were  too  numer 
ous  and  systematic  for  this.  It  is  to  be  noticed 
that  Mr.  Lynch  does  not  attempt  to  controvert 
statements  of  events  in  Mississippi,  with  one  or 
two  exceptions  to  be  considered  below.  To 
attempt  to  review  the  conclusions  to  which  Mr. 
Lynch  takes  exception  would  involve  a  review  of 
too  great  a  mass  of  evidence.  The  web  of  Recon 
struction  is  such  a  tangled  one,  that  even  if  one 
has  carefully  considered  a  large  part  of  the  great 
bulk  of  primary  material  on  the  subject,  generaliza 
tions  on  the  period  must  still  be  accepted  cau 
tiously.  This  much  may  be  said:  Mr.  Rhodes's 
conclusions  are  in  harmony  with  those  of  the 
other  trained  historical  students  who  have  de- 


78      Historical  Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

voted  time  to  a  careful  study  of  this  period.  Mr. 
Lynch's  racial  bias,  the  fact  that  he  was  an  active 
participant  in  the  events,  and  finally  that  his 
judgments  are  based  on  his  own  experiences  and 
not  on  a  close  study  of  a  far  wider  field  of  material, 
make  whatever  he  writes  of  value  as  source 
material,  but  at  the  same  time  mitigate  against 
its  value  as  an  impartial  opinion.  This  is  espe 
cially  evident  from  the  fact  that  he  makes  no 
attempt  either  in  the  article  or  in  his  book  to 
substantiate  his  statements  by  such  reference 
to  his  authorities  as  modern  historiography 
demands.  His  authority  is,  of  course,  himself  and 
his  recollections,  and  the  recognition  of  the  treach 
ery  of  memory  is  a  first  fundamental  in  historical 
work. 

Page  347.  Taking  up  some  of  Mr.  Lynch's 
statements:  He  speaks  of  thousands  of  white 
men  who  were  identified  with  the  Republican 
party  in  the  South  in  Reconstruction  time.  A 
comparison  of  census  and  election  statistics  do 
not  give  support  to  this  fact;  and  though  such 
figures  are  far  from  exact,  they  give  a  basis  for 
generalizing  superior  to  that  of  any  personal 
recollection,  or,  indeed,  of  anything  short  of  a 
general  agreement  of  contemporary  statements 
to  the  contrary.  No  such  agreement  exists  so 
far  as  I  have  been  able  to  search.  In  Tennessee, 
North  Carolina,  Arkansas,  and  to  less  extent  in 
Virginia  and  Texas,  there  were  a  considerable 


Comments  on  Article  by  John  R.  Lynch        79 

number  of  white  Republicans;  but  in  the  other 
Southern  states  in  no  election  between  1868  and 
1872  did  the  Republican  vote  equal  the  census 
figures  for  Negroes  of  voting  age  in  1870.  The 
nearest  approach  to  this  was  in  South  Carolina  in 
1870,  when  the  Republican  vote  for  governor  was 
85,000  and  the  Negroes  of  voting  age  85,400. 
In  Mississippi  the  nearest  approach  was  in  the 
vote  for  Grant  in  1872,  when  there  were  82,000 
votes  against  the  census  figures  of  90,000.  The 
machinery  for  getting  out  the  Negro  vote,  and  it 
was  Republican  machinery,  was  such  as  to  permit 
the  assumption  that  an  unusually  large  percent 
age  of  the  Negroes  voted  at  the  elections. 

Page  349.  Mr.  Lynch  speaks  of  Dent  as  a 
Democrat  carpetbagger,  but  he  was  scarcely 
that.  Though  supported  by  the  Democrats  he 
was  nominated  by  a  faction  of  Republicans; 
moreover,  he  was  a  Missourian  by  birth,  had 
family  connections  in  Mississippi,  and  had  while 
living  in  California  married  the  daughter  of  a 
prominent  Mississippian.  He  was  scarcely  a 
typical  carpetbagger.  That  there  should  have 
been  a  split  in  the  Republican  party  of  the  state 
so  early  is  not  a  very  good  argument  for  the 
character  of  the  leaders  or  of  the  measures  they 
endorsed. 

Page  349.  Of  the  high  hopes  of  such  men  as 
Alcorn  there  can  be  no  doubt;  but  scarcely  less 
doubtful  was  the  failure  to  realize  their  hopes. 


80      Historical  Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

Alcorn  himself  favored  Negro  disfranchisement  in 
1890. 

Page  850.  Judges  Peyton  and  Tarbell,  a  car 
petbagger,  were  Republicans,  but  Simrall  is 
generally  classed  as  a  Democrat.  He  was  chair 
man  of  the  state  legislative  committee  that  re 
ported  in  favor  of  rejecting  the  14th  Amendment. 
Riley  classes  him  as  a  Democrat,  as  does  Garner, 
though  Mayes  calls  him  a  moderate  Republican, 
of  the  same  class  as  Dent.  Tarbell  seems  to  have 
been  a  good  judge.  Garner  is  luke-warm  in  his 
appreciation,  but  Lamar  said  that  "  his  decisions 
attest  his  extraordinary  ability  and  industry." 
All  commend  his  uprightness.  Tarbell  in  1887 
called  himself  a  conservative  carpetbagger,  one 
who  found  himself  in  the  minority.  He  said  that 
the  Republican  party  in  Mississippi  collapsed 
through  its  own  weakness;  having  devised  a 
constitution  in  which  "  there  was  much  to  praise 
and  to  be  proud  of,  and  little  to  condemn,"  the 
party  gave  birth  to  legislation  of  which  "  this 
criticism  is,  in  a  measure,  reversed."1  The  judi 
ciary  was  the  best  department  of  government 
under  Reconstruction  in  Mississippi. 

Page  354-  Ignorant  Negro  office-holders.  All 
that  I  find  as  to  Evans,  except  Garner's  statement 
of  "it  was  alleged,"  is  in  an  account  of  Recon 
struction  in  De  Soto  County,  written  by  I.  C. 
Nichols  in  the  publications  of  the  Miss.  Soc., 

i  Mag.  of  Am.  History  XXVIII,  424. 


Comments  on  Article  by  John  R.  Lynch       81 

XI,  307.  He  does  not  say  that  Evans  could  not 
read  or  write,  but  that  his  "  bondsmen  really 
administered  his  affairs  and  ran  his  office. "  At 
one  time  there  was  a  charge  of  defalcation  against 
him,  but  nothing  specific,  and  Nichols  concludes 
that  nothing  really  was  wrong.  After  this  some 
changes  were  made  in  his  bondsmen  and  "  R.  R. 
West  was  put  in  charge  of  the  office  and  became 
sheriff  in  all  but  name."  West  was,  perhaps,  one 
of  the  "  honest,  efficient,  and  capable  assistants." 
Evans  had  been  a  slave.  In  Washington  County 
there  was  also  a  Negro  sheriff, 'Winslow  by  name. 
Mr.  Lynch  does  not  mention  him,  but  according 
to  the  testimony  of  H.  B.  Putnam,  a  carpet 
bagger,  Winslow  was  "  nominally  "  sheriff,  but 
his  bondsmen  ran  the  office;  the  sheriff,  though 
he  could  read  and  write,  was  "  incompetent  to 
take  charge  of  his  office,"  which  was  worth 
$10,000  or  $15,000  a  year  legitimately,  and,  ac 
cording  to  a  white  Democrat,  about  $100,000  by 
other  means.2  Scott  of  Issaquena,  whom  Mr. 
Lynch  mentions,  testified  before  the  Boutwell 
committee,  and  so  far  as  can  be  judged  by  that 
testimony  he  was  a  man  of  fair  intelligence,  though, 
according  to  the  testimony  of  one  of  his  own  race, 
not  endowed  with  rash  courage.3  The  testimony 
of  another  carpetbagger,  with  reference  to  Holmes 
County,  is  interesting,  though  it  does  not  show 
whether  the  sheriff-elect  was  white  or  black.  He 

»  Boutwell  Report,  1446,  1470.        »  Ibid,  608. 


82      Historical  Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

was  probably  not  Sumner,  as  this  man  never 
served  in  the  office.  This  carpetbagger  said 
that  the  sheriff  of  the  county  having  died  and  this 
man  elected  to  fill  the  vacancy,  the  successor 
arranged  to  have  the  witness  assist  in  making  the 
bond.  "  Other  gentlemen  hesitated  to  go  on  the 
bond  unless  I  would  go  there  and  be  responsible 
for  the  running  of  the  office.7'  The  man  was 
prevented  from  taking  office  so  nothing4  came  of 
the  arrangement.  On  the  whole,  such  first-class 
material  as  I  have  been  able  to  find  does  not  uphold 
Garner  entirely  in  his  estimate  of  this  class  of 
officials,  especially  as  to  his  footnote  statement 
about  their  dishonesty;  neither  does  it  give  the 
impression  that  they  were  worthy,  as  a  whole,  of 
the  important  positions  they  occupied.  If  Evans, 
as  described  by  Rhodes,  following  Garner,  was 
not  typical,  neither  was  Bruce. 

Page  360.  The  point  Mr.  Lynch  makes  about 
the  defalcation  of  Hemingway  is  an  interesting 
one,  and  one  that  is  evidently  carefully  kept  in 
the  background  by  the  local  writers. 

Page  361.  Mr.  Lynch  gives  figures  for  1875 
and  1907  on  financial  matters,  and  on  the  basis  of 
these  claims  that  the  profligacy  of  Reconstruction 
finances  is  not  proven.  The  manifest  unfairness 
of  taking  figures  for  1907  may  be  passed  over; 
but  the  necessary  basis  of  comparison  must  be 
wider  than  this.  Nor  do  his  conclusions  agree 

<  Ibid,  580. 


Comments  on  Article  by  John  R.  Lynch       83 

with  any  others  that  I  have  seen,  nor,  which  is 
more  important,  with  other  statistics.  Both 
those  of  the  census  or  those  given  annually  by 
Appletons'  Annual  Cyclopedia  lead  to  other 
conclusions.  Just  as  an  illustration  of  what  is 
said  on  the  other  side,  take  this  statement,  which 
seems  to  be  that  of  the  land  tax.  This  was  1 
mill  in  1869,  5  mills  in  1870,  4  mills  in  1871,  8^ 
mills  in  1872,  Vl\  mills  in  1873,  14  mills  in  1874, 
9|  mills  in  1875,  6j  mills  in  1876,  6|  mills  in  1877, 
3j  mills  in  1878.  Another  point  that  should  be 
considered  is  that  Mr.  Lynch  confines  his  figures 
to  state  finances;  while  it  was  for  local  finances 
that  the  Reconstruction  government  of  Missis 
sippi  is  most  severely  condemned. 

Page  362.  Mr.  Lynch  is  correct  in  saying  that 
the  Mississippi  senators  at  the  time  of  the  state 
election  in  1875  were  Alcorn  and  Bruce.  Pease 
had  been  succeeded  by  Bruce  on  March  4  of  that 
year.  Pease  opposed  Ames,  but  he  was  no  longer 
senator. 

Page  362.  Mr.  Lynch,  in  upholding  the  Re 
construction  policy  of  Stevens  and  Sumner  and 
what  he  calls  their  desire  to  delay  restoration, 
seems  to  have  overlooked  the  fact  that  the  wisest 
of  all  the  Civil  War  statesmen  desired  to  get  the 
states  back  into  the  Union  before  Congress  should 
meet  in  December,  1865.  Mr.  Lynch  is  right  in 
thinking  that  the  14th  Amendment  was  essen 
tially  a  correct  measure,  but  so  also  does  Mr. 


84      Historical  Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

Rhodes.  The  15th  Amendment  is  quite  a  differ 
ent  proposition,  however.  Nor  does  it  follow 
because  legislation  of  some  sort  might  have  been 
necessary  to  enforce  the  14th  Amendment  or  to 
take  its  place  when  the  South  refused  to  adopt  it, 
that  the  Reconstruction  Acts  were  the  legitimate 
offspring  of  that  necessity.  That  the  Negro 
soldiers  helped  to  win  the  war  is  not  proof  that 
the  war  would  have  failed  without  them;  or  that 
the  necessary  price  of  their  valor  was  suffrage  for 
all  the  men  of  their  race,  the  bulk  of  whom  were 
not  capable  of  understanding  it;  or  that  such 
suffrage  was  necessary  to  the  preservation  of  the 
Union.  Oratory,  inside  or  outside  of  Congress, 
is  not  historical  proof. 

Pages  365,  367.  Mr.  Lynch's  statement  that 
the  failure  of  Reconstruction  was  due  to  unwise 
judicial  interpretation  need  not  be  considered. 
It  is  anachronistic  and  does  not  agree  with  the 
views  now  generally  accepted  by  historical  stu 
dents.  But  what  he  says  of  the  infidelity  of 
Waite  and  Bradley  can  be  refuted  directly  from 
the  Supreme  Court  Reports.  As  to  the  appoint 
ment  of  these  justices,  there  is  no  evidence  that 
it  was  because  of  any  specially  strong  nationalistic 
position  on  their  part.  Bradley,  if  chosen  for 
any  particular  views,  got  the  justiceship  because 
of  his  attitude  on  legal  tender;  and  the  conditions 
under  which  Waite  was  appointed  do  not  show  up 
any  bias  on  his  part.  In  U.  S.  v.  Reese  the  court 


Comments  on  Article  by  John  R.  Lynch       85 

stood  seven  to  two;  and  the  dissentients  were 
Clifford,  a  Democrat,  and  Hunt,  appointed  by 
Grant. 

In  U.  S.  v.  Harris  (the  Ku  Klux  decision)  Woods 
delivered  the  decision.  Harlan  alone  dissented 
and  only  on  the  question  of  jurisdiction.  The 
Bench  at  that  time  held  two  judges  appointed  by 
Lincoln,  two  by  Grant,  two  by  Hayes,  one  by 
Garfield,  and  two  by  Arthur.  The  Civil  Rights 
Cases  decision  was  delivered  by  Bradley.  Har 
lan  was  the  only  dissenter.  These  were  the  three 
important  Reconstruction  decisions  during  the 
term  of  Waite  and  Bradley.  All  of  them  were 
delivered  after  Reconstruction  had  failed.  On 
the  other  hand,  Bradley  delivered  the  opinion  in 
ex  parte  Siebold,  in  which  the  federal  election 
laws  were  upheld,  and  Field  and  Clifford  were  the 
only  ones  who  disagreed  with  it. 

The  following  is  the  author's  reply  to  the 
expert's  answer. 


CHAPTER  XV 

SOME    HISTORICAL    ERRORS    OF   JAMES    FORD 
RHODES 

In  its  issue  of  October,  1917,  "  The  Journal  of 
Negro  History  "  published  in  part  an  article  by 
me,  pointing  out  some  of  the  historical  errors 
made  by  Mr.  Rhodes  in  his  "  History  of  the 
United  States  from  the  Compromise  of  1850  to 
the  Final  Restoration  of  Home  Rule  at  the  South 
in  1877." 

Since  it  appears  that  Mr.  Rhodes  had  no  per 
sonal  knowledge  of  the  important  historical  events 
referred  to,  he  sent  a  copy  of  the  journal  contain 
ing  the  article  to  a  friend  who  was  presumed  to 
be  better  informed  along  those  lines,  to  whom 
Mr.  Rhodes  refers  as  an  expert,  with  the  request 
that  he  make  a  careful  examination  of  the  article 
and  write  a  reply  to  the  same,  or  perhaps  to  make 
such  comments  as  would  furnish  Mr.  Rhodes 
with  the  information  desired.  I  have  been 
favored  through  a  mutual  friend  with  a  copy  of 
that  reply,  which  is  now  before  me. 

In  an  effort  to  weaken  the  force  of  what  I  have 
written,  this  expert,  in  his  opening  generalization, 
made  several  observations  which  may  be  classed 


Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes  87 

under  three  different  heads.  First:  If  the  white 
men  referred  to  by  me  were  of  such  a  high  charac 
ter,  why  should  the  acts  accredited  to  them  have 
been  of  such  a  low  character? 

Second:  That  I  am  influenced  in  what  I  write 
about  that  period  by  racial  bias  and  the  fact  that 
I  was  an  active  participant  in  the  events  referred 
to. 

Third:  That  what  I  write  is  based  upon  my 
own  experience  and  memory,  much  of  which  is 
likely  to  be  inaccurate  through  the  treachery  of 
memory,  the  same  not  being  fortified  by  refer 
ences  to  other  historical  works. 

In  the  first  place,  I  frankly  confess  that  what  I 
have  written  and  shall  write  in  defense  of  the 
Reconstruction  governments  at  the  South  has 
been  and  will  be  of  very  little  value  if  it  were 
conceded  that  the  acts  accredited  to  the  men  to 
whom  I  have  referred  were  of  a  low  character. 
That  is  the  very  point  upon  which  the  public  has  ^ 
been  misinformed,  misled  and  deceived.  I  do 
not  hesitate  to  assert  that  the  Southern  recon 
structed  governments  were  the  best  governments 
those  states  ever  had  before  or  have  ever  had 
since,  statements  and  allegations  made  by  Mr.? 
Rhodes  and  some  other  historical  writers  to  the 
contrary  notwithstanding.  It  is  not  claimed 
that  they  were  perfect,  but  they  were  a  decided 
improvement  on  those  they  succeeded,  and  they 
were  superior  in  every  way  to  those  which  are 


88      Historical  Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

representative  of  what  Mr.  Rhodes  is  pleased  to 
term  the  restoration  of  home  rule.  They  were 
the  first  and  only  governments  in  that  section 
that  were  based  upon  the  consent  of  the  governed. 
If  Mr.  Rhodes  honestly  believed  that  what  he 
wrote  hi  condemnation  and  denunciation  of  those 
governments  was  based  upon  authenticated  facts, 
then  the  most  charitable  view  that  can  be  taken 
in  his  case  is  that  he,  like  thousands  of  others,  is 
simply  an  innocent  victim  of  a  gross  deception. 

Whether  or  not  I  am  influenced  by  racial  ties 
or  partisan  bias  in  what  I  have  written  and  may 
hereafter  write,  I  am  willing  to  allow  my  readers 
to  decide.  I  am  sure  they  have  not  failed  to  see 
from  what  I  have  thus  far  written  that  the  con 
trolling  purpose  with  me  is  to  give  actual  facts, 
free  from  racial  partiality  or  partisan  bias.  The 
idea  that  I  have  endeavored  to  keep  in  mind  is, 
that  what  the  readers  and  students  of  American 
history  desire  to  know  is  the  unbiased  truth  about 
the  important  events  of  the  period  in  question, 
and  not  the  judgment  and  opinions  of  the  person 
or  persons  by  whom  they  are  recorded. 

In  the  third  place,  the  statement  that  the  value 
of  what  I  have  written  is  impaired  because  what 
is  said  about  the  important  events  of  the  period 
in  question  is  based,  in  the  main,  upon  my  own 
knowledge  and  experience,  must  impress  the 
intelligent  reader  as  strange  and  unusual. 

With  reference  to  the  period  under  considera- 


Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes  89 

tion,  the  difference  between  what  I  have  written 
and  what  has  been  written  by  Mr.  Rhodes  and 
some  other  historical  writers  is  what  the  lawyers 
would  call  the  difference  between  primary  and 
secondary  evidence.  The  primary  is  always 
considered  the  best  evidence,  the  secondary  to  be 
used  only  when  the  primary  cannot  be  obtained. 
And  yet  what  I  have  written  is  not  based  wholly 
upon  memory.  Where  it  is  I  have  referred  to 
distinguished  persons  and  important  events  and 
occurrences  which  are  not  likely  to  be  confused 
through  the  treachery  of  memory.  The  statisti 
cal  information  I  have  given  is  not  from  memory, 
but  from  the  files  of  the  official  records,  accessible 
to  the  public.  But  it  appears  that  Mr.  Rhodes 
and  some  other  historical  writers  used  only  such 
parts  of  the  official  records  as  answered  the  pur 
pose  they  seem  to  have  had  in  view.  This  is 
virtually  admitted  by  Mr.  Rhodes's  expert,  in 
stating  that  "  the  point  Mr.  Lynch  makes  about 
the  defalcation  of  Hemingway  is  an  interesting 
one,  and  one  that  is  evidently  carefully  kept  in 
the  background  by  the  local  writers."  Yes,  they 
not  only  kept  that  point  in  the  background,  but 
all  other  points  that  were  not  in  harmony  with 
the  purpose  they  seem  to  have  had  in  mind, 
which  is  in  effect  one  of  misrepresentation. 

The  reader  will  not  fail  to  see  that  Mr.  Rhodes's 
expert  passed  over  in  silence  a  number  of  impor 
tant  points  in  my  article.  In  some  of  those 


90      Historical  Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

alluded  to  by  him  he  frankly  admitted  that  I  am 
right,  as  in  the  case  of  Treasurer  Hemingway.  In 
the  case  of  Mr.  Evans,  the  colored  sheriff  of  De 
Soto  County,  he  relies  upon  an  ex  parte  statement 
written  by  a  Mr.  Nichols  of  that  county,  evidently 
a  partisan,  who  makes  an  effort  to  paint  Mr. 
Evans  in  as  unfavorable  a  light  as  possible,  and 
yet  he  fails  to  confirm  the  allegation  that  Mr. 
Evans  could  neither  read  nor  write,  but  concludes 
his  communication  with  the  declaration  "  that 
nothing  really  was  wrong."  From  what  is  writ 
ten  by  Mr.  Rhodes's  expert  I  find  that  Garner  is 
the  one  from  whom  Mr.  Rhodes  obtained  most  of 
his  misinformation.  In  speaking  of  the  colored 
sheriffs  in  a  general  way  Mr.  Rhodes' s  expert  was 
frank  enough  to  say:  "  On  the  whole,  such  first 
hand  material  as  I  have  been  able  to  find  does 
not  uphold  Garner  entirely  in  his  estimate  of  this 
class  of  officials,  especially  as  to  his  footnote 
statement  about  their  dishonesty."  This  bears 
out  the  statement  made  by  me  that  if  Mr.  Rhodes 
had  desired  to  be  fair  and  impartial  he  would 
have  taken  all  the  colored  sheriffs  into  considera 
tion  and  would  have  drawn  an  average,  which 
would  have  shown  that  in  point  of  intelligence, 
capacity  and  honesty  they  compared  favorably 
with  the  whites. 

The  assertion  made  by  me  that  the  Republican 
party  in  Mississippi  included  in  its  membership 
many  of  the  best  and  most  substantial  white  men 


Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes  91 

in  that  state  is  disputed,  because  the  Republican 
vote  in  the  state  at  the  presidential  election  of 
1872  happened  to  be  only  a  few  thousand  less 
than  the  number  of  colored  men  hi  the  state  of 
voting  age,  as  shown  by  the  census  of  1870.  It  is 
therefore  assumed  that  very  few,  if  any,  white 
men  voted  the  Republican  ticket  at  that  election. 
To  ascertain  the  voting  strength  of  a  political 
party,  census  figures  cannot  be  relied  upon  with 
any  degree  of  certainty,  but  since  Mr.  Rhodes's 
expert  seems  to  think  otherwise  I  am  perfectly 
willing  to  accept  them  in  this  instance  for  what 
they  may  be  worth.  The  number  of  colored  men 
of  voting  age  in  the  state  at  that  time,  as  shown 
by  the  census  of  1870,  was  88,850;  whites  76,909; 
colored  majority,  11,941,  and  yet  the  Republican 
majority  in  1872  was  34,887.  If  the  voting 
strength  of  the  two  parties  were  in  proportion  to 
the  number  of  colored  and  white  men  in  the 
state,  as  this  expert  would  have  the  public  be 
lieve,  and  the  percentage  of  colored  and  white 
men  who  voted  was  about  the  same,  which  can 
be  safely  assumed,  the  Republican  majority  in 
that  case  could  not  have  been  more  than  12,000, 
whereas  it  was  nearly  three  times  that  number. 
Assuming  that  the  Republican  and  Democratic 
vote  combined  comprised  the  whole  number  that 
voted  at  that  election,  the  total  number  of  votes 
polled  was  129,463,  which  was  36,296  less  than 
the  number  of  voters  in  the  state.  Of  the  36,296 


92      Historical  Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

that  did  not  vote,  I  estimate  that  at  least  16,000 
of  them  were  white  men.  Subtract  the  16,000 
from  the  76,909  white  voters  and  it  will  be  seen 
that  the  number  of  white  men  that  voted  at  that 
election  was  60,909,  and  yet  the  Democratic  vote 
was  47,288,  which  was  13,621  less  than  the  num 
ber  of  white  men  that  voted.  My  own  estimate 
is  that  of  the  82,175  Republican  votes,  61,266 
were  cast  by  colored  men  and  20,909  by  white 
men.  Of  the  47,288  Democratic  votes,  40,000 
were  cast  by  white  men  and  7,288  by  colored  men. 
From  the  above  estimate  it  will  be  seen  that 
more  than  one  third  of  the  white  men  who  voted 
at  that  election  voted  the  Republican  ticket. 
This  estimate  is  strengthened  when  the  result  of 
the  election  in  the  different  counties  is  taken  into 
consideration.  The  Republicans  not  only  carried 
every  county  in  which  the  colored  voters  had  a 
majority,  but  also  a  number  of  counties  in  which 
the  whites  were  in  the  majority.  The  majority 
by  which  the  state  was  carried  by  Alcorn  in  1869 
was  about  the  same  as  that  by  which  it  was  carried 
by  Grant  in  1872.  Alcorn  not  only  carried  a 
number  of  white  counties,  but  ten  of  them  elected 
Republicans  to  the  legislature,  two  of  them, 
Lawrence  and  Marion,  elected  each  a  colored 
member.  The  ten  counties  were  Pike,  Lawrence, 
Marion,  Jackson,  Jasper,  Clark,  Lee,  Leak, 
Lafayette  and  Attala.  Judge  Green  C.  Chandler, 
afterwards  a  judge  of  the  circuit  court  and  later 


Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes  93 

U.  S.  district  attorney,  was  elected  from  Clark, 
Hon.  H.  W.  Warren,  who  succeeded  Judge  Frank 
lin  as  Speaker  of  the  House,  was  elected  from 
Leak,  Judge  Jason  Niles  and  Hon.  E.  Boyd,  both 
able  and  brilliant  lawyers,  were  elected  from 
Attala.  Judge  Niles  was  afterwards  appointed 
a  judge  of  the  circuit  court  and  later  served  as  a 
Republican  member  of  Congress. 

In  the  opinion  of  this  expert,  Judge  Dent,  the 
Democratic  candidate  for  governor  in  1869  was 
scarcely  a  typical  carpetbagger,  because  he  was 
born  in  Missouri  and  had  family  connections  in 
Mississippi.  Still,  if  he  were  not  a  typical  carpet 
bagger,  then  we  had  none  in  the  state,  because  the 
designation  included  all  those  that  settled  in  the 
state  after  the  war  was  over.  Judge  Dent  was 
one  of  that  number.  But  I  may  be  able  to  give 
Mr.  Rhodes  what  was  believed  to  be  the  principal 
reason  that  influenced  the  Democrats  to  support 
Judge  Dent.  He  was  President  Grant's  brother- 
in-law,  hence  it  was  hoped  and  believed  that  in 
this  case  family  ties  would  prove  to  be  stronger 
than  party  ties  and  that  the  national  administra 
tion  would  support  Dent  instead  of  Alcorn,  the 
ex-Confederate.  In  this  case  they  were  mis 
taken.  Grant  had  been  elected  as  a  Republican, 
and  he  could  not  be  induced  to  throw  the  weight 
of  his  influence  against  his  own  party,  even  in  a 
state  election,  merely  to  contribute  to  the  realiza 
tion  of  the  personal  ambition  of  his  wife's  brother. 


94      Historical  Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

It  is  true  that  a  few  men  who  called  themselves 
Republicans  also  supported  Judge  Dent,  but  the 
result  of  the  election  was  conclusive  evidence 
that  the  so-called  split  in  the  party  was  not  at 
all  serious. 

Speaking  of  the  three  Supreme  Court  judges, 
the  expert  admits  that  Peyton  and  Tarbell  were 
Republicans,  but  Simrall,  he  claims,  is  generally 
classed  as  a  Democrat.  In  support  of  this  asser 
tion  attention  is  called  to  the  fact,  among  others, 
that  he  was  chairman  of  the  state  legislative  com 
mittee  that  reported  in  favor  of  rejecting  the  14th 
Amendment.  But  that  was  before  the  passage 
of  the  Reconstruction  Acts  and  before  the  Repub 
lican  party  in  the  state  was  organized.  Judge 
Simrall  joined  the  Republican  party  in  1868  or 
1869.  What  I  asserted,  and  now  repeat,  is  that 
he  was  a  Republican  when  he  was  made  a  justice 
of  the  state  supreme  court  in  1870.  Even  if  he, 
like  thousands  of  others,  had  rejoined  the  Demo 
cratic  party,  that  would  not  disprove  my  assertion 
that  he  was  a  Republican  while  he  was  on  the 
bench.  But  it  appears  that  he  was  not  one  of 
those  who  rejoined  the  Democrats,  but  remained 
a  Republican  to  the  day  of  his  death.  In  1884, 
nine  years  after  the  redemption,  he  canvassed  the 
state  for  Blaine  and  Logan,  Republican  candi 
dates  for  president  and  vice-president.  In  1890 
the  Democrats  of  Warren  County,  in  selecting 
suitable  persons  to  represent  that  important 


"*  Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes  95 

county  in  the  state  constitutional  convention, 
held  in  the  fall  of  that  year,  were  anxious  to  have 
the  benefit  of  the  knowledge,  ability  and  experi 
ence  of  Judge  Simrall.  They  took  the  liberty  of 
placing  his  name  on  their  ticket,  to  which  it 
appears  he  made  no  objection,  and  in  that  way 
he  was  elected  a  delegate  to  the  convention. 
But  did  this  make  him  a  Democrat?  I  am  sure 
both  Mr.  Rhodes  and  his  expert  will  allow  Judge 
Simrall  to  answer  that  question  for  himself,  and 
that  they  will  accept  his  answer  as  conclusive  on 
that  point.  For  his  answer  they  are  respectfully 
referred  to  page  704  of  the  official  journal  of  the 
constitutional  convention  of  1890.  They  will 
see  that  the  members  of  the  convention  were 
politically  classified,  each  member,  of  course, 
furnishing  the  information  as  to  his  own  party 
affiliations.  It  will  be  seen  that  Judge  Simrall  is 
classified  as  a  "  National  Republican. "  Ex- 
Governor  Alcorn  was  also  a  member  of  that 
convention,  having  been  elected  from  Coahoma 
County  in  the  same  way.  His  political  classifica 
tion  is  that  of  "  Conservative."  So  it  seems  that 
neither  Simrall  nor  Alcorn  rejoined  the  Demo 
cratic  party.  Instead,  therefore,  of  Republicans 
being  obliged  to  utilize  Democratic  material  in 
the  selection  of  Judges,  as  erroneously  stated  by 
Mr.  Rhodes,  it  appears  that  the  Democrats  were 
obliged  to  utilize  Republican  talent,  experience 
and  ability  to  assist  them  in  framing  a  new  con- 


96      Historical  Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

stitution.  I  am  sure  that  the  assertion  can  be 
safely  made  that  Simrall  and  Alcorn  were  not 
among  the  "  lovers  of  good  government "  who 
rejoiced  "  at  the  redemption  of  Mississippi," 
through  the  employment  of  means  that  Mr. 
Rhodes  so  much  regretted. 

"  The  judiciary,"  the  expert  declares,  "  was 
the  best  department  of  government  under  Re 
construction  in  Mississippi,"  and  yet  the  judges 
were  all  appointed  by  the  Governor,  by  and  with 
the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate.  It  goes 
without  saying  that  if  the  Governor's  appointees 
were  good,  the  appointing  power  was  equally 
good.  The  expert  virtually  admits  that  there 
was  no  justification  for  the  declaration  that  "  all 
lovers  of  good  government  must  rejoice  at  the 
redemption  of  Mississippi,"  when  he  used  the 
following  language:  "  Mr.  Lynch  confines  his 
figures  to  state  finances;  while  it  was  for  local 
finances  that  the  Reconstruction  government  of 
Mississippi  is  most  severely  condemned."  In 
other  words,  there  was  nothing  wrong  with  the 
state  administration;  it  was  the  local  county  and 
municipal  governments  that  were  bad.  And 
yet,  a  fair  and  impartial  investigation  will  reveal 
the  fact  that  there  is  no  more  foundation  for  this 
allegation  than  for  those  about  the  state  govern 
ment.  It  is  admitted  that  during  the  early  part 
of  Reconstruction  the  local  tax  rate  was  high, 
the  reasons  for  which  are  fully  explained  in  "  The 


Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes  97 

Facts  of  Reconstruction."  Such  an  investiga 
tion  would  show  that  the  charges  of  extravagance, 
recklessness  and  maladministration  so  generally 
made  about  the  administration  of  county  and 
municipal  affairs  were  grossly  exaggerated  and 
nearly  if  not  all  of  them  wholly  untrue.  In 
fact  the  expert  flatly  contradicts  himself  on  this 
point,  because  he  admits  that  the  evidence  does 
not  support  the  charge  of  dishonesty  in  the  case 
of  the  colored  sheriffs,  and  yet  the  sheriff  is  the 
principal  officer  in  the  administration  of  the 
county  government. 

With  reference  to  the  financial  affairs  of  the 
state  the  expert  makes  no  effort  to  disprove  a 
single  statement  of  mine.  He  simply  makes  the 
broad  assertion  that  my  conclusions  do  not  agree 
with  other  statistics,  and  yet  he  fails  to  produce 
the  statistics  with  which  they  do  not  agree.  To 
illustrate  his  point  he  calls  attention  to  the  differ 
ent  rates  of  taxation  covering  a  period  of  about 
ten  years,  which,  if  true,  is  of  no  importance  in 
this  connection,  because  the  same  has  no  bearing 
upon  the  material  point  now  under  considera 
tion.  The  tax  rate  is  always  determined  by  the 
amount  of  money  needed  to  meet  the  obligations 
of  the  state,  predicated  upon  the  assessed  value  of 
taxable  property.  Changes  in  the  tax  rate, 
therefore,  are  likely  to  be  of  frequent  occurrence. 
The  pertinent  point  at  issue  is  the  volume  of 
money  paid  into  the  treasury  and  the  disposition 


98      Historical  Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

made  of  it.  In  this  connection  a  slight  amplifica 
tion  of  the  figures  already  given  will  not  be  in 
appropriate.  In  1875,  the  last  year  of  Republi 
can  rule  and  the  year  the  state  was  redeemed,  the 
total  receipts  from  all  sources  amounted  to 
$1,801,129.12.  Disbursements,  same  year,  $1,- 
430,192.83,  or  $370,936.29  less  than  received.  In 
1907  the  receipts  from  all  sources  amounted  to 
$3,391,127.15.  Disbursements,  same  year,  $3,- 
730,343.29,  or  $339,216.14  more  than  was  received; 
and  $2,300,150.46  more  than  was  paid  out  in 
1875.  In  fact,  the  financial  condition  of  the  state 
during  several  years  was  such  that  the  legislature 
was  obliged  to  authorize  the  issuance  of  bonds 
upon  which  to  borrow  money  to  meet  current 
demands,  thus  adding  materially  to  the  bonded 
debt  of  the  state.  Can  anything  more  inex 
cusable  and  indefensible  than  this  be  imagined? 
That  any  one  of  the  reconstructed  governments 
could  possibly  have  been  guilty  of  such  malad 
ministration  as  this  is  inconceivable.  And  yet, 
this  administration  typifies  what  Mr.  Rhodes  is 
pleased  to  term  the  restoration  of  home  rule  at 
the  South,  for  which  all  lovers  of  good  government 
should  rejoice. 

The  expert  admits  that  I  am  right  in  what  was 
said  about  Senators  Alcorn  and  Bruce,  but  asserts 
that  Senator  Pease,  Mr.  Bruce's  immediate  prede 
cessor,  was  opposed  to  Ames.  This  is  another 
assertion  that  is  not  in  harmony  with  the  truth. 


Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes  99 

Ames  was  a  United  States  senator  when  he  was 
elected  governor;  when  he  resigned  the  senator- 
ship  to  become  governor  there  remained  about 
fourteen  months  of  his  senatorial  term.  The 
duty,  therefore,  devolved  upon  the  legislature 
elected  in  1873,  at  the  same  time  Senator  Ames 
was  elected  governor;  of  electing  a  senator  for  the 
full  term  and  also  for  the  unexpired  term.  Bruce, 
an  Ames  man,  was  elected  for  the  full  term,  and 
Pease,  also  an  Ames  man,  was  elected  for  the  unex 
pired  term.  If  Pease  had  been  opposed  to  Ames 
he  could  not  have  been  elected  to  the  senate  by 
that  legislature,  for  it  was  unquestionably  an 
Ames  legislature.  It  is  true  Pease  was  defeated 
for  renomination  for  state  superintendent  of 
education  by  the  convention  that  nominated 
Ames,  still  he  loyally  supported  the  ticket,  and 
after  the  election  he  was  looked  upon  as  one  of 
the  friends  and  supporters  of  Ames's  administra 
tion,  and  as  such,  and  for  that  reason,  he  was 
elected  one  of  the  administration  senators.  I 
was  a  member  of  Congress  at  that  time  and 
therefore  had  occasion  frequently  to  confer  with 
Senator  Pease,  as  the  senatorial  representative 
of  the  state  and  national  administrations.  If 
Senator  Pease  was  opposed  to  Ames,  I  am  sure 
that  both  Mr.  Rhodes  and  his  expert  will  admit 
I  would  have  known  it;  and  yet  I  do  not  hesitate 
to  say  that  Senator  Pease  never  did  by  word, 
act  or  deed  cause  me  to  entertain  the  slightest 


100    Historical  Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

suspicion   that   he   was   not   a   loyal   friend  and 
supporter  of  the  Ames  administration. 

In  regard  to  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court, 
the  expert  simply  makes  the  declaration  that  my 
statement  that  the  failure  of  Reconstruction 
was  due  to  unwise  judicial  interpretation,  need 
not  be  considered.  Of  course  not,  at  least  by 
him.  In  the  first  place  it  is  not  true  that  I  ad 
mitted  that  Reconstruction  was  a  failure.  On 
the  contrary,  those  who  will  carefully  read  what 
I  have  written  will  not  fail  to  see  that  my  con 
tention  is  that  in  its  important  and  essential 
particulars  that  policy  was  a  great  and  brilliant 
success;  also  that  I  instanced  the  ratification  of 
the  14th  and  15th  Amendments,  neither  of  which 
could  have  otherwise  been  ratified,  as  a  vindica 
tion  of  the  wisdom  of  that  legislation,  even  if 
nothing  else  had  resulted  from  it.  It  is  admitted 
that  some  of  the  friends  and  supporters  of  the 
Congressional  plan  of  Reconstruction  have  been 
disappointed  because  those  governments  did  not 
and  could  not  stand  the  test  of  time.  To  this 
extent  and  for  this  reason  some  persons  claim 
that  the  policy  was  a  failure.  I  am  not  of  that 
number,  for  reasons  which  the  readers  of  the 
article  referred  to  will  see.  But  the  inability  of 
those  governments  to  stand  the  test  of  time  I 
accounted  for  under  three  heads,  one  of  which 
was  several  unfortunate  decisions  rendered  by  the 
Supreme  Court,  the  result,  in  my  opinion,  of  two 


Errors  of  James  Fortf  -Rhofa*       ;      ;1O1 

unfortunate  appointments  made  by  President 
Grant  in  the  persons  of  Chief  Justice  Waite  and 
Associate  Justice  Bradley.  I  do  not  assert  that 
those  two  Judges,  or  any  others  for  that  matter, 
were  appointed  with  reference  to  their  attitude 
upon  any  public  question,  still  I  am  satisfied  that 
they  were  believed  to  be  in  accord  with  the  other 
leaders  and  constitutional  lawyers  in  the  Repub 
lican  party  in  their  construction  of  the  14th 
Amendment.  The  constitutional  warrant  for  the 
Civil  Rights  Bill  is  the  clause  which  declares 
that  "  No  state  shall  make  or  enforce  any  law 
which  shall  abridge  the  privileges  or  immunities 
of  citizens  of  the  United  States."  It  was  there 
fore  held  that  any  law  or  ordinance  which  pro 
vided  for,  recognized  or  sanctioned  separate 
accommodations  for  the  two  races  in  the  exercise 
and  enjoyment  of  the  rights  and  privileges  that 
are  supposed  to  be  common  to  all  classes  of  per 
sons  would  be  a  violation  of  this  provision  of  the 
14th  Amendment;  and  since  Congress  was  author 
ized  to  enforce  the  Amendment,  affirmative  legis 
lation  for  the  enforcement  of  that  provision  was 
held  to  be  thus  warranted.  This  view  was  held 
by  such  able  and  brilliant  constitutional  lawyers 
as  Edmunds  and  Conkling  in  the  Senate,  and 
Butler,  George  F.  Hoar  and  E.  Rockwood  Hoar, 
Lyman  Tremaine,  Garfield  and  Wilson  in  the 
House.  Senator  Carpenter  was  the  only  Repub 
lican  lawyer  of  any  note  that  took  a  different  view 


.  102  ,-  Historical  Errvrs  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

of  the  matter.  While  he  believed  the  whole  bill 
was  unconstitutional,  the  section  prohibiting  race 
discrimination  in  the  selection  of  jurors  in  state 
courts  he  believed  to  be  especially  obnoxious  to 
the  constitution.  He  declared  that  if  that  sec 
tion  could  stand  the  test  of  a  judicial  decision  all 
the  others  could  and  should,  and  yet  the  Court, 
through  a  decision  handed  down  by  Mr.  Justice 
Strong,  affirmed  the  constitutionality  of  that 
section;  but  in  a  decision  handed  down  by  Mr. 
Justice  Bradley  the  section  providing  for  equal 
accommodations  in  hotels,  inns  and  places  of 
amusement  was  declared  unconstitutional  except 
in  the  District  of  Columbia  and  the  territories. 
In  several  subsequent  decisions,  handed  down  in 
the  main  by  Chief  Justice  Waite,  some  of  the  most 
vital  and  important  sections  of  the  enforcement 
acts,  especially  those  having  for  their  object  the 
protection  of  individual  citizens  against  domestic 
violence  through  federal  machinery  when  neces 
sary,  were  also  declared  to  be  unconstitutional 
and  void. 

I  am  of  the  opinion,  shared  by  many  others, 
that  if  men  of  the  type  of  Edmunds  and  Conkling 
had  been  appointed  Supreme  Court  Justices  in 
stead  of  Waite  and  Bradley,  the  rulings  of  the 
Court -in  the  important  cases  referred  to  might 
have  been  different.  The  unfortunate  thing 
about  those  decisions  is  the  wide  scope  of  authority 
thus  conceded  to  the  states.  In  other  words,  they 


Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes  103 

amount  to  a  judicial  recognition  of  the  dangerous 
doctrine  of  States  Rights  —  a  doctrine  which  has 
been  the  source  and  the  cause  of  most  of  our 
domestic  troubles  and  misfortunes  since  those 
decisions  were  rendered.  But  for  those  unfortu 
nate  decisions  our  country  would  not  be  cursed 
and  disgraced  today  by  lynch  law  and  other 
forms  of  lawlessness  and  racial  proscription  and 
discrimination.  But  for  those  unfortunate  deci 
sions,  lynching  could  have  been,  and  I  am  sure 
would  have  been,  held  to  be  an  offense  against 
the  peace  and  dignity  of  the  United  States  as 
well  as  the  state.  Consequently,  the  criminals 
could  be,  and  in  most  cases  would  be,  prosecuted 
in  the  federal  courts  and  through  federal  machin 
ery,  as  was  done  in  the  case  of  many  of  the  leaders 
of  that  secret  criminal  organization  called  the 
Ku  Klux  Klan.  But  this  took  place  before  the 
decisions  referred  to  were  rendered.  The  Court 
has  also  decided  that  a  state  law  providing  for 
separate  accommodations  for  white  and  colored 
people  on  railroad  trains,  at  least  for  passengers 
whose  journey  begins  and  ends  in  the  same  state, 
is  not  an  abridgement  in  violation  of  the  Consti 
tution,  provided  the  accommodations  for  the  two 
races  are  exactly  equal,  which  means  that  the 
validity  even  of  those  laws  will  not  be  affirmed 
whenever  it  can  be  shown  that  the  accommoda 
tions  are  not  equal,  which  can  be  very  easily 
done.  Equal  separate  accommodations  is  both 


104    Historical  Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

a  physical  and  a  financial  impossibility.  It  is 
simply  impossible  for  a  railroad  company  to 
provide  the  same  accommodations  for  one  colored 
passenger  that  it  provides  for  one  hundred  whites. 
If,  then,  a  colored  passenger  cannot  occupy  a 
seat  or  a  sleeping  berth  in  a  car  in  which  white 
persons  may  be  passengers,  this  will  not  only  be 
an  abridgement,  but,  in  some  cases,  an  absolute 
denial,  of  such  accommodations.  The  ultimate 
nullification  of  such  unfair,  unjust  and  unreason 
able  laws  must  necessarily  follow. 

In  spite  of  the  unfavorable  rulings  of  the  Court, 
as  above  noted,  that  tribunal  as  at  present  con 
stituted  has  rendered  several  very  important 
decisions  which  have  given  the  friends  of  national 
supremacy  and  equal  rights  much  hope  and  en 
couragement.  The  most  important  of  these  is 
the  one  declaring  unconstitutional  and  void  the 
ordinances  providing  for  the  segregation  of  the 
races  in  the  purchase  and  occupation  of  property 
for  residential  purposes  in  several  cities.  The 
decision  in  this  case  was  broad,  comprehensive 
and  far-reaching.  This  important,  fair  and  equi 
table  decision  has  given  the  colored  American  new 
hope  and  new  inspiration.  It  has  strengthened 
and  intensified  his  loyalty  and  devotion  to  his 
country,  his  government,  its  flag  and  its  institu 
tions.  It  makes  him  feel  that  with  all  of  its 
faults  and  shortcomings,  our  form  of  government 
is  superior  to,  and  better  than,  that  of  any  other, 


Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes  105 

and  that  a  few  more  decisions  along  the  line  of  this 
one,  which  I  hope  and  believe  may  be  safely 
anticipated,  every  justifiable  cause  of  complaint 
on  the  part  of  the  colored  American  will  have  been 
removed,  because  the  evils  resulting  from  the 
unfavorable  and  unfortunate  rulings  above  noted 
will  have  been  remedied  and  cured.  Our  type  of 
democracy  will  then  be  what  it  now  purports  to 
be,  the  pure  and  genuine  article.  This  will  then 
be  in  truth  and  in  fact  the  land  of  the  free  and  the 
home  of  the  brave.  It  will  then  be  a  typical 
representative  of  that  form  of  democracy  under 
which  there  can  be  no  slave,  no  vassal  and  no  peon, 
but  everyone  will  be  an  equal  before  the  law  in 
the  exercise  and  enjoyment  of  life,  liberty  and 
property,  and  in  the  exercise  and  enjoyment  of 
such  public  rights  and  privileges  as  are,  or  should 
be,  common  to  all  citizens  alike,  without  distinc 
tion  or  discrimination  based  upon  differences  of 
race,  color,  nationality  or  religion.  These  were 
the  aims,  objects  and  purposes  the  framers  of  the 
14th  Amendment  had  in  view  when  that  Amend 
ment  was  drawn,  and  from  present  indications  it 
seems  to  be  clear  that  the  highest  court  in  the 
land  will  not  allow  the  same  to  be  defeated.  But 
the  most  significant  point  about  the  segregation 
decision  grows  out  of  the  fact  that  the  fair, 
reasonable,  sound  and  equitable  principles  therein 
set  forth  and  clearly  enunciated  received  the 
approbation  and  endorsement  of  a  unanimous 


106    Historical  Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

court  consisting  of  nine  judges,  in  which  conflict 
ing  and  antagonistic  political  views  were  presumed 
to  be  represented.  This  indicates  that  the  day 
is  not  far  off  when  the  so-called  race  question  will 
cease  to  be  a  political  factor,  and  that  all  political 
parties  will  recognize  merit  and  not  race,  fitness 
and  not  color,  experience  and  not  religion,  ability 
and  not  nationality,  as  the  tests  by  which  persons 
must  be  judged,  not  only  in  the  administration 
of  the  government  but  in  the  industrial  field  as 
well.  For  the  accomplishment  of  these  meri 
torious  ends  and  the  attainment  of  these  desirable 
purposes,  men  of  the  type  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 
should  give  their  aid,  support  and  influence, 
instead  of  allowing  these  to  be  used  in  the  interests 
of  that  small  class  of  unpatriotic  Americans  who 
seek  political  distinction  and  official  recognition 
at  the  expense  of  racial  harmony  and  brotherly 
love. 


CHAPTER  XVI 

The  purpose  of  this  chapter  is  to  amplify  and  bring  out  in 
more  detail  some  of  the  points  touched  upon  in  preceding 
chapters. 

THE  PRESIDENTIAL  ELECTION  OF  1916 

There  were  some  phases  of  the  presidential 
election  of  1916  which  should  receive  the  careful 
consideration  and  serious  reflection  of  the  students 
of  American  history,  especially  those  who  are 
believers  in  a  genuine  Republican  form  of  govern 
ment.  In  considering  these  matters  the  mind 
should  be  entirely  divested  of  partisan  bias  or 
racial  prejudice;  the  aim  and  purpose  should  be 
to  ascertain  what  effect  these  matters  may  have 
upon  the  stability  and  perpetuity  of  our  Republi 
can  institutions. 

The  presidential  election  of  1916  was  the  first 
one  since  1884  when  the  vote  of  the  states  com 
posing  what  is  left  of  the  "  solid  South  "  proved 
to  be  a  deciding  factor.  In  all  presidential 
elections  since  1884  and  until  1916  the  vote  of  the 
states  above  referred  to  would  not  have  changed 
the  result  one  way  or  the  other.  But  in  1916  the 
case  was  different. 

It  is  hoped  that  the  reader  will  not  suspect  that 
the  author  is  actuated  or  influenced  either  by 


108    Historical  Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

partisan  bias  or  racial  partiality  in  making  the 
statement  based  upon  his  personal  knowledge  of 
political  conditions  as  they  then  existed,  that 
President  Wilson  was  legally  and  constitution 
ally,  but  not  fairly  and  honestly,  re-elected.  In 
other  words,  he  was  duly  elected  according  to  the 
forms  of  law,  the  observance  and  enforcement  of 
which  are  essential  to  the  maintenance  of  law  and 
order  and  to  avoid  and  prevent  revolution, 
anarchy  and  chaos.  But  it  sometimes  happens 
that,  through  the  application  and  enforcement  of 
these  essential  and  necessary  forms,  the  choice  of 
a  majority  of  those  who  are  legally  entitled  to 
participate  in  the  selection  of  public  officials  is 
defeated.  Such  was  the  case  in  1916.  Accord 
ing  to  the  political  situation  at  that  time  there 
were  at  least  three  states  at  the  South,  Missis 
sippi,  Louisiana  and  South  Carolina,  which 
would  have  been  as  reliably  Republican  as  the 
states  of  Pennsylvania  and  Vermont,  but  for  the 
suppression  of  the  colored  vote  in  those  states, 
through  an  evasion  or  violation  of  the  Federal 
Constitution.  It  will  be  seen,  therefore,  that, 
but  for  the  suppression  of  the  colored  vote  at  the 
South,  Hughes  instead  of  Wilson  would  have 
been  elected  President  in  1916.  But  this  would 
have  meant  "  Negro  domination,"  because  the 
choice  of  a  majority  of  the  white  voters  would 
have  been  defeated  by  the  votes  of  colored  men. 
We  would  not  only  have  had  "  Negro  domina- 


Presidential  Election  of  1916  109 

tion  "  in  the  executive  but  also  in  the  legislative 
department  of  the  government,  because  by  the 
same  vote  the  party  of  which  Judge  Hughes  was 
the  representative  would  have  had  a  majority  in 
both  branches  of  the  legislative  department. 
This  would  not  only  have  been  true  of  the  Con 
gress  that  was  elected  at  that  time  but  of  several 
preceding  Congresses,  for  there  are  not  less  than 
six  members  of  the  Senate  and  thirty  of  the  House 
that  would  be  of  a  different  political  classification 
but  for  the  suppression  of  the  colored  vote  at  the 
South.  It  will  thus  be  seen  that  if  that  vote  had 
not  been  suppressed  in  1916  we  would  have 
had  "  Negro  domination "  in  both  the  execu 
tive  and  legislative  departments  of  the  national 
government,  although  no  colored  man  may  have 
been  officially  identified  with  either  of  those 
departments. 

It  does  not  necessarily  follow  that  the  political 
party  to  which  a  majority  of  the  colored  voters 
belong  is,  in  every  case,  the  beneficiary  when  the 
colored  vote  proves  to  be  a  deciding  factor  in  a 
closely  contested  election.  In  the  presidential 
election  of  1884,  for  instance,  Mr.  Cleveland,  the 
Democratic  candidate  for  President  of  the  United 
States,  polled  a  very  small  percentage  of  the 
colored  vote  in  the  state  of  New  York,  but  the 
fact  was  developed  that  the  plurality  by  which 
he  carried  that  important  and  pivotal  state  was 
considerably  less  than  the  number  of  colored  men 


110    Historical  Errors  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

who  voted  for  him.  If,  therefore,  the  colored 
men,  or  a  majority  of  them,  who  voted  for  Mr. 
Cleveland  in  New  York  at  that  time  had  voted 
against  him  he  would  have  lost  the  state  and 
consequently  the  presidency  of  the  United  States. 
But  there  seems  to  have  been  no  public  appre 
hension  of  "  Negro  domination  "  as  a  result  of 
that  election,  although  the  colored  vote  proved  to 
be  a  deciding  factor. 

In  what  is  written  in  this  chapter  no  reflection 
upon  President  Wilson  is  meant  or  intended.  He 
was  twice  elected  to  the  Presidency  of  the  United 
States,  and  on  each  occasion  his  election  was  due 
to  a  combination  of  circumstances  for  the  exis 
tence  of  which  he  was  in  no  sense  responsible. 
His  first  election,  1912,  was  due  to  a  serious  split 
in  the  Republican  party.  If  in  the  election  of 
presidential  electors  a  majority  instead  of  a 
plurality  had  been  required  to  elect,  Mr.  Wilson 
would  not  have  been  elected.  He  was,  therefore, 
a  minority  candidate,  but  the  same  was  true  in 
the  first  election  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  who  proved  to 
be  one  of  the  best  presidents  the  country  has 
ever  had.  The  election  of  1912,  therefore,  was 
not  only  valid  and  constitutional,  but  since  the 
vote  of  the  South  was  not  a  deciding  factor,  its 
fairness  cannot  very  well  be  questioned. 

In  1916  President  Wilson  was  the  beneficiary 
of  the  suppression  of  the  colored  vote  at  the 
South  through  the  application  and  enforcement 


Presidential  Election  of  1916  111 

of  methods  which  popular  sentiment  of  the 
country,  North  as  well  as  South,  had,  through  a 
misapprehension  of  the  facts,  excused,  tolerated 
and  acquiesced  in.  While,  therefore,  the  legality 
of  the  election  cannot  and  should  not  be  ques 
tioned,  the  reader  cannot  fail  to  see  that  there 
are  some  grave  and  complicated  questions  in 
volved,  which,  if  not  corrected,  are  calculated  to 
weaken  and  impair,  if  not  to  undermine  and 
destroy,  the  fundamental  principle  and  doctrine 
upon  which  our  system  of  government  is  based. 


INDEX 


Ackerman,  x. 

Alcorn,  J.  L.,  5,  6,  14,  28,  79, 

80,  83,  92,  93,  95. 
Anderson,  4. 


Conkling,  Senator,  101,  102. 
Carpenter,  Senator,  101. 
Civil  Rights  Bill,  20,  41,  42, 
101. 


Ames,  Adelbert,  6,  27,  28,  98,      Dent,  Judge  Louis,  5,  79,  80, 


99. 

Aristocracy,  xix,  4,  5. 
Appomattox,  43. 
Arthur,  President,  85. 

B 

Bruce,  Hon.  B.  K.,  ix,  19,  20, 

28,  82,  83,  98,  99. 
Brown,  Ex-Governor,  4. 
Bullock,  Ex-Governor,  4. 
Beauregard,  General,  4. 
Bill,  Civil  Rights,  20,  41,  42, 

101. 

Buchanan,  Hon.  G.  M.,  24,  25. 
Bradley,  Judge,  41,  42,  43,  84, 

101. 

Elaine,  James  G.,  56,  94. 
Boyd,  Hon.  E.,  93. 
Butler,  Gen.  B.  F.,  101. 
Borah,  Senator,  54. 


Chestnutt,  C.  W.,  xii. 
Compton,  W.  M.,  6. 
Cassidy,  Judge  Hiram,  Sr.,  7. 
Cassidy,  Judge  Hiram,  Jr.,  7. 
Chandler,  Judge,  7,  92. 
Grain,  Judge,  7. 
Carpenter,  J.  N.,  7. 
Cleveland,  President,  12,  109. 
Cain,  Congressman,  20. 
Cheatham,  Congressman,  20. 
Court,  U.  S.  Supreme,  43,  46, 

100. 

Clause,  Understanding,  73. 
Christman,  Judge,  73. 
Calhoun,  Judge  S.  S.,  74. 


93,  94. 
Deason,  J.  B.,  6. 
Davis,  Judge,  7. 
Decision,  Dred  Scott,  33. 
Decisions,  Supreme  Court,  41, 

70,  100. 

E 

Evans,  Rev.  J.  J.,  14,  15,  16, 

17,  80,  81,  82,  90. 
Elliott,  Congressman,  20. 
Edmunds,  Senator,  101,  102. 

F 

"  Facts  of  Reconstruction,"  25, 

26,  27,  28. 
Fulkerson,  4. 
Flournoy,  Hon.  R.  W.,  5. 
Frank,  Leo,  44,  45. 
Federal  Elections  Bill,  56. 
Franklin,  Judge  F.  E.,  93. 

G 

Grant,  President,  9,  37,  41,  85, 

93,  101. 

Garfield,  President,  85,  101. 
George,  Hon.  J.  Z.,  72,  73,  74, 

75. 
Garner,  80,  82,  90. 

H 

Hunt,  4. 

Hayes,  President  R.  B.,  32,  46, 

85. 

Hamlin,  Frank,  xiii. 
Hill,  Ben,  4. 
Hill,  Joshua,  4. 


114 


Index 


Hahn,  Ex-Governor,  4. 
Harrison,  President,  6. 
Hunt,  T.  W.,  6. 
Hancock,  Judge,  7. 
Henderson,  Judge,  7. 
Hill,  Judge,  7. 
Harney,  W.  H.,  18. 
Hemingway,  Wm.  L.,  23,  24, 

25,  82,  89,  90. 

Holland,  Hon.  George  H.,  23. 
Harlan.  Justice,  44,  85. 
Hoar,  G.  F.,  101. 
Hoar,  E.  R.,  101. 
Hughes,  Judge  C.  E.,  54,  108, 

109. 

J 

Jackson,  Clarion,  vii. 
Jeffords,  Congressman,  5. 
Johnson,  President,  30,  32. 
"  Journal  of  Negro  History," 


Key,  xi. 

Ku  Klux  Klan,  37,  38,  41,  103. 


Lee,  Gen.  R.  E.,  4. 
Longstreet,  General,  4. 
Lamar,  Hon.  L.  Q.  C.,  5,  56, 

80. 

Lea,  Judge  Luke,  6. 
Lea,  A.  M.,  6. 
Langston,  Congressman,  20. 
Logan,  Senator,  94. 
Lincoln,  President,  85. 

M 

Myers,  George  A.,  xi. 
Mosby,  4. 
Mahone,  4. 
Massey,  4. 

McKee,  George  C.,  Congress 
man,  5. 

Millsaps,  R.  W.,  6. 
Morphis,  Hon.  J.  L.,  7. 
McMillan,  Judge,  7. 
McCary,  Wm.,  17,  18. 


Miller,  Congressman,  20. 
Mississippi  Constitution,  1890, 

72. 

Mayes,  80. 
Millsaps,  Judge,  7. 

N 

Niles,  Judge  Jason,  5,  93. 
Niles,  Judge  H.  C.,  6. 
"  Negro  Domination,"  52,  53, 

64,  67. 
Nichols,  I.  C.,  80,  81. 

O 

Orr,  Ex-Governor,  4. 
Osgood,  Judge,  7. 
O'Hara,  Congressman,  20. 
Oligarchy,  xix,  52,  63. 


Pinchback,  Hon.  P.  S.  B.,  viii, 

ix. 

Parsons,  Ex-Governor,  4. 
Paul,  4. 

Powers,  Governor,  5,  6,  14. 
Perce,  Congressman,  5. 
Peyton,  Judge  E.  G.,  6,  80,  94. 
Putnam,  H.  B.,  81. 
Pease,  U.  S.  Senator,  83,  98. 


Revels,  Hon.  H.  R.,  ix,  x,  20. 
Reynolds,  Ex-Governor,  4. 
Riddleberger,  4. 
Rainey,  Congressman,  20. 
Rapier,  Congressman,  20. 
Riley,  80. 


Southern  White  Republicans, 

3. 

Speed,  Judge,  5. 
Simrall,  Judge  H.  F.,  6,  80,  94, 

95. 

Sessions,  Hon.  J.  F.,  7. 
Smyley,  Judge,  7. 
Surget,  James,  7. 
Scott,  H.  P.,  18,  81. 


Index 


115 


Smalls,  Congressman,  20. 
Stephens,  Congressman,  20. 
Stevens,  Thad.,  Congressman, 

29,  31,  35,  83. 
Sumner,  Sen.  Charles,  29,  31, 

35,  83. 

Strong,  Justice,  102. 
States  Rights,  42,  43,  44,  45, 

46,  54,  103. 
Supreme  Court,  43,  46,  100. 


Tarbell,  Judge,  5,  6,  80,  94. 
Tribune,  Chicago,   36,  51,   52, 

53,  54,  64,  66,  68. 
Taft,  President,  54,  63,  67. 
Tremaine,  Lyman,  101. 
Tilden,  Samuel  J.,  58. 

U 
"  Understanding  Clause,"  73. 


Vasser,  W.  H.,  6. 

W 

Wickham,  4. 

Wells,  4. 

Walton,  Judge,  7. 

Walker,  Judge,  7. 

Wood,  Robert  H.,  18. 

White,  Congressman,  20. 

Waite,  Chief  Justice,  41,  42,  43, 

84,  101. 

Walthal,  Hon.  E.  C.,  72. 
West,  R.  R.,  81. 
Winslow,  81. 
Warren,  Hon.  H.  W.,  93. 
Wilson,  Representative,  101. 
Wilson,  President,  108,  110. 
Wright,  Judge,  ix. 
Woods,  Justice,  85. 


RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 
University  of  California  Library 

or  to  the 

NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 
Bldg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 
University  of  California 
Richmond,  CA  94804-4698 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

•  2-month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling 
(510)642-6753 

•  1-year  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing 
books  to  NRLF 

•  Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made  4 
days  prior  to  due  date. 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 

NOV171997 


12,000(11/95) 


YB  37448 
U.C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


r>2-N7? 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


I-*, 


-• 


i 


